ejercicio_pronunciacion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Propone un par de contraste' and does not disclose any behavioral details such as side effects, required inputs, or output format. This is a minimal statement that leaves much implicit.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient, though it may be too terse for full usefulness—but that is captured in other dimensions.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameter semantics, the expected output, or when to use it in the broader learning context. The sibling tools suggest a language-learning environment, but the description lacks necessary context.

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 one parameter 'concepto' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain what 'concepto' means or how to use it, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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 a specific verb 'Propone' and a specific resource 'par de contraste' for pronunciation, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like comprobar_pronunciacion or audio_de, though it does not explicitly differentiate from obtener_ejercicios.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does without mentioning prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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