grado_interrogar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that the tool interrogates and evaluates, but does not disclose whether the interaction is single-shot or multi-turn, how answers are supplied (there is no answer parameter), what permissions are needed, or what the evaluation output contains.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it packs three ideas (socratic questioning, exam context, evaluation doctrine) into one clause chain without structural separation.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain how the interrogation works, especially given that the only inputs are materia and dificultad and there is no parameter for supplying an answer. The evaluation flow and return behavior remain unexplained, leaving a meaningful gap for an interactive tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (materia, dificultad), including defaults and example values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, which makes 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Interroga socráticamente') and resource (law graduate exam questions in Chile) with an explicit evaluation goal, so an agent can identify the function. It does not differentiate against siblings like grado_generar_cedula or grado_obtener_flashcards, which is why it falls short of 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The exam-practice context is only implicit in 'examen de grado' and never framed as a routing condition.

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