uned_progreso

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only query, whether authentication is required (uned_login/uned_logout exist as siblings), or what happens when no asignatura is given. It adds no behavioral context beyond the topic of the data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope statement ('una o todas') comes after the resource definition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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-value explanation is not needed, and the enum of states plus the all-or-one scope covers the essentials. However, with no annotations and a login sibling in the toolset, silence on read-only behavior and auth is a real gap for an agent deciding whether it can call this safely.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining 'de una o todas las asignaturas', which tells the agent that omitting the asignatura parameter returns all subjects. That is meaningful semantics the bare string/default schema does not convey.

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?

Names the resource (study status per topic) and enumerates the five possible states (pendiente/leyendo/visto/repasado/dominado), and scopes it to one or all subjects. It does not explicitly name the sibling uned_progreso_marcar or contrast reading versus writing progress, so sibling differentiation is only implicit from the noun-phrase framing.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus uned_progreso_marcar, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name and the word 'Estado', which is weak given a near-identical sibling exists.

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