Detalle de un juego

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only tag is largely redundant. The description does add value by naming the access scope ('Equipo del aula') and, since no output schema exists, by listing the returned fields (tipo, consigna, configuración completa); however it says nothing about failure modes such as a missing game, a game from another classroom, or insufficient permissions.

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 the context tag first and the payload description after; nothing is wasted. The bracketed tag is mildly noisy but carries real information about scope and read-only behavior.

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 getter with full schema coverage this is close to adequate, and listing the returned fields compensates for the absent output schema. It remains incomplete on error behavior and on how the classroom scope constrains lookup, which matters for a tool that appears alongside many sibling getters.

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% and both UUID parameters are documented ('Juego', 'Aula'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds scope ('de una lección', 'Equipo del aula') that hints at the classroom scoping relationship between classroom_id and game_id, but no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Devuelve') with a specific resource ('un juego de una lección') and previews the payload ('el tipo, la consigna y la configuración completa'), which lets an agent separate it from get_lesson, get_exam or get_scenario. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear rather than exemplary.

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 '[Equipo del aula · solo lectura]' tag implies the tool only makes sense for classroom staff retrieving an existing game, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over list_lesson_items or when not to call it (e.g. after save_game). Usage must be inferred.

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