login_check

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

The description discloses the main behaviors: validating login and switching to the Docente profile. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., existing session), or failure modes, leaving the agent with an incomplete behavioral picture.

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, compact sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple purpose, the description is almost complete. It covers the core action and target profile, though it could benefit from noting whether any session or context is required. The presence of an output schema (not shown) may further supplement return info, raising the completeness 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (vacuously). The description adds no parameter details, but there is nothing to add, making the baseline 4 appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Valida login') and a specific resource ('perfil Docente de SIU Guaraní UNR'), distinguishing it from sibling tools which all perform post-login operations like 'buscar_acta' or 'detalle_mesa'.

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool likely serves as a prerequisite for the other docente-related tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives, relying on the agent to infer its role from the description.

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