mesas_examen_docente

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral details: the default date range, the optional override, and the date format. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, pagination, or result limits—important context for a listing tool even if not required.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise parameter/default behavior. No redundant or extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, list operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral info. It could mention whether an empty result is possible or if any auth is implied, but for the scope it is largely complete.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that 'desde/hasta' are optional, accept dates in dd/mm/aaaa format, and are used to override the default range. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 'mesas de examen operables del docente' from 'zona_examenes', using a specific verb and resource. It uniquely identifies this as a listing operation for the teacher's operable exam boards, distinguishing it from sibling detail/action tools.

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?

It provides clear context by specifying the default wide date range (-90/+180 days) and the optional use of 'desde/hasta' parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'agenda_examenes_docente' or 'detalle_mesa_docente', so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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