Detalle del escenario

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses the payload contents (reference answer, result messages, rubric) — important because there is no output schema — and 'Equipo del aula' signals an access restriction requiring classroom-team membership. It does not cover behavior on a missing or unauthorized scenario.

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 preceded by a scoping tag; the access/safety constraint is front-loaded and every clause (returned contents, rubric IDs) earns its place. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and both required parameters are fully documented in the schema. What remains thin is error/not-found behavior and whether the rubric is embedded versus separately fetchable; those are minor for a simple two-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two required UUID parameters ('Escenario' and 'Aula'), so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about the IDs — for instance whether classroom_id must be the one that owns the scenario — so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource ('Devuelve un escenario') and enumerates what the resource carries (reference answer, result messages, rubric with criterion IDs), which clearly separates it from write-side siblings such as update_scenario, delete_scenario and save_scenario_criterion. It stops short of naming a sibling it could be confused with (e.g. get_lesson or get_exam), but the resource is unambiguous.

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 bracketed tag '[Equipo del aula · solo lectura]' implies this is the read path for classroom staff, so an agent can infer 'use this to inspect an existing scenario rather than to modify it'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no prerequisite spelled out beyond the implicit team membership.

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