operacion_docente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'trae y parsea' (fetches and parses), but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return behavior. This is a gap for a tool that appears to be a generic dispatcher.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and examples. Each word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete for a generic operation runner. It does not enumerate supported operation values, clarify its relationship with sibling tools, or explain what 'parsea' implies for the output. This leaves the agent unable to select robustly between this and the many specific sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only gives three examples of possible operation values. It does not explain the expected format, validity constraints, or how the operation string maps to actual backend operations, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 states that the tool 'trae y parsea una operación arbitraria del perfil Docente', giving a clear verb+resource and examples. However, 'operación arbitraria' is vague and the examples (e.g., 'inscriptos_cursadas') do not directly match the sibling tool names (e.g., 'inscriptos_cursada_docente'), which weakens the differentiation.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this generic operation tool versus the specific sibling tools (e.g., 'inscriptos_cursada_docente'). The examples imply some operations, but there is no explanation of when the generic tool is preferred over the specialized ones.

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