uned_leer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioural burden. It discloses that the tool reads previously extracted text and accepts an optional page range, but says nothing about truncation behaviour despite max_caracteres defaulting to 30000, nor about what happens when the requested range exceeds the material. Read-only safety is only implied by 'Lee'.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the input contract, with the citation instruction appended as a single clause. No filler or repetition; slightly terse given the amount of undocumented surface it is the sole source for.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the page-range plus input-provenance statements are useful. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the unexplained max_caracteres parameter leaves a real gap for a tool an agent will call with variable-length results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It explains 'archivo' (relative path from uned_buscar/uned_materiales) and the page range ('opcionalmente un rango de páginas'), covering three of four, but leaves max_caracteres entirely undefined — its truncation semantics are absent from both description and 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lee el texto extraído de un material') and immediately anchors it among siblings by naming the source of its input ('ruta relativa devuelta por uned_buscar/uned_materiales'). An agent can tell this apart from the search/listing tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation: the 'archivo' argument must come from uned_buscar/uned_materiales, and usage is optionally narrowed by page range. It also prescribes a downstream behaviour ('Cita siempre archivo y página'). No explicit when-not-use or exclusion is stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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