periodos_lectivos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only list operation, a visibility filter ('visibles'), and an authentication requirement. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects, pagination, or return format, leaving some transparency gaps for a no-parameter read tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Lista') and the resource. It contains no redundant or filler words, earning a perfect score 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 simple, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what is listed, for whom, and under what visibility constraints. It could optionally explain 'zona_clases' or the return format, but these are secondary given the output schema.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric baseline, a 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lista' (lists) with the resource 'períodos lectivos' and adds scope ('visibles en zona_clases para el docente autenticado'), making its purpose clear and distinguishable from sibling tools that focus on cursadas, mesas, actas, etc.

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 context (for the authenticated teacher, in zona_clases) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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