grado_generar_cedula

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and world-access are covered externally. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the output is a composite artifact (questions + linked norms + doctrine + grading rubric), but says nothing about format, length, persistence, or whether the result is saved anywhere. There is mild tension between 'Genera' and readOnlyHint=true, though content generation returned to the caller is plausibly non-mutating, so this is not a hard contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists the output components without filler. Nothing is redundant and nothing is missing from the sentence's scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the enumeration of what the cédula contains effectively substitutes for a return-value description. Gaps remain around format, size, and language, but the core of what an agent needs to call this correctly is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter ('tema') and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself providing examples ('Obligaciones', 'Responsabilidad'). The description adds no meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline 3 for fully documented parameters applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Genera') with a specific resource ('cédula completa de examen de grado') and even enumerates the deliverable's components (preguntas, normas vinculadas, doctrina canónica, pauta de evaluación). An agent immediately understands what it produces. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like grado_interrogar, grado_obtener_flashcards, or generar_documento, so it stops just short of the top band.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With several grado_* and generation siblings in the toolset, an agent gets no help deciding when a full 'cédula' is the right artifact versus grado_interrogar or grado_obtener_flashcards. The single-purpose framing implies usage but never states it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.