inscriptos_examen_docente

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the default PII exclusion and the include_pii option, as well as the accepted URL formats. This provides meaningful behavioral insight beyond the schema, though it does not mention pagination or output format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the key PII behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 description is complete for a list-retrieval tool with two parameters and an existing output schema. It covers purpose, source paths, and PII behavior. Minor omissions like auth requirements or exact response format are mitigated by the output schema and sibling context.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by giving URL patterns for the 'url' parameter and explicitly explaining include_pii's default false value and effect. Both parameters are effectively described, though the url parameter is conveyed indirectly through examples.

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 lists enrolled students for an exam mesa, with specific URL patterns. It distinguishes from siblings like inscriptos_cursada_docente through the explicit 'mesa de examen' context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage by explaining what the tool does and how to include PII, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings nor provide exclusions. The URL patterns give some context, but no direct comparison with alternatives.

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