detalle_mesa_docente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'metadatos de la mesa', which adds some content context, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what side effects (if any) exist. For a detail endpoint, this is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and source location.

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 a single parameter and an output schema available, the description is reasonably complete for a simple detail endpoint. However, given the lack of annotations and the existence of closely related sibling tools, it would benefit from explicitly stating the read-only nature and when to use this tool over 'detalle_url_docente'. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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 0% description coverage and only one parameter, 'url'. The description adds meaning by specifying that the URL should be from 'zona_examenes/home/<hash>', which explains the expected input format. However, it does not provide an example or clarify whether the hash is mandatory, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving details/metadata of an exam board ('mesa de examen') from a specific zone URL path. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like 'mesas_examen_docente' by focusing on a single item's detail, and from other detail tools by specifying the resource type.

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 description implies the tool should be used when you have a URL from 'zona_examenes/home/<hash>'. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'detalle_url_docente' or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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