reporte_actas_docente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions filtering options and the meaning of origen, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, how it behaves without filters (e.g., returns all), pagination, or any side effects. The description lacks transparency about the tool's behavior beyond the basic list function.

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 very concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then add filter details. No unnecessary words. It is well-structured and information-dense.

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 tool has 3 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose and filter names but lacks contextual guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings, behavioral details, and full parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but the description still feels incomplete for distinguishing itself in a crowded toolset.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides substantial meaning for 'origen' by explaining R, E, P values, and explicitly identifies 'periodo' and 'actividad' as filters. However, it does not clarify the format or expected values for 'periodo' and 'actividad', leaving partial gaps.

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's function with a specific verb + resource: 'Lista actas de Reporte de Actas con filtros opcionales' (Lists grade reports from Reporte de Actas with optional filters). It also provides the scope of the origen parameter with R/E/P values, distinguishing it from similar listing tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like buscar_acta_cursada_docente, so it does not fully differentiate them.

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: to list actas with optional filters, and it explains the origen filter values. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not explicitly spelled out, fitting the 'implied usage' level.

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