Detalle del examen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'solo lectura' is largely redundant. What the description adds beyond them is valuable: the access scope ('Equipo del aula') and, importantly, the shape of the result — the exam configuration together with all its questions and their IDs — which matters because there is no output schema.

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 plus a bracketed metadata tag with no filler. The bracket prefix is compact and carries scope/read-only signal, though it is slightly opaque without knowing the naming convention.

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 two-parameter read tool with a full schema, complete annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing piece: what comes back (configuration plus all questions with IDs). Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or size expectations for large exams.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both required UUID parameters (exam_id, classroom_id) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, constraint, or relationship details beyond what the schema already states, but it also does not need to.

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?

'Devuelve la configuración de un simulacro o examen y todas sus preguntas con sus IDs' names a concrete verb (devuelve) and a specific resource (exam configuration plus its questions), so an agent immediately knows this is a detail-fetch tool. It is clearly distinct from mutating siblings like update_exam, delete_exam, or add_exam_questions, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

The '[solo lectura]' tag implies this is the read path for exams and the 'Equipo del aula' tag hints at who may call it, which gives usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no guidance on which sibling to choose (e.g., get_course_outline vs this tool).

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