detalle_acta_cursada_docente

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It indicates that the tool searches and returns detail rows, but it does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether it is a read-only operation, potential error conditions, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a lookup tool.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. For a simple one-parameter lookup, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what input it requires. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details (e.g., error handling, authentication), which prevents a higher score.

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 schema has one parameter 'numero_acta' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds some meaning by stating that the tool searches 'por número', aligning the parameter with the acta number. However, it does not clarify the exact format expected (e.g., leading zeros, length) or provide additional constraints beyond the schema's basic type and title.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Busca un acta de cursada por número y devuelve sus renglones de detalle.' It uses specific verbs ('busca', 'devuelve') and identifies the resource ('acta de cursada') and the specific output ('renglones de detalle'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'buscar_acta_cursada_docente' which likely returns the acta itself, not the detail lines.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when you have an acta number and need detail lines, but it does not mention exclusions or compare with sibling tools such as 'detalle_cursada_docente' or 'buscar_acta_cursada_docente'. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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