estado_alumno

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

No annotations are present, and the description only says 'Resumen del progreso,' which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what data is returned, or whether it reflects real-time or cached information. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise, using a single short phrase. It is not verbose, but it is also too brief to provide meaningful guidance; the conciseness is adequate but does not fully compensate for the lack of detail.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the progress summary contains, but it only gives a vague 'Resumen del progreso.' This leaves significant ambiguity about the nature of the returned information, especially relative to sibling tools.

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 the description correctly implies no parameters are needed. With no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 'Resumen del progreso' indicates the tool provides a summary of the student's progress, which is a clear main function and distinct from sibling tools like puntos_debiles or diagnostico_inicial. However, it lacks specificity about what dimensions of progress are covered (e.g., overall, per skill), making it somewhat vague.

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 guidance on when to use this tool compared to siblings such as puntos_debiles or cobertura_concepto. The description does not mention any conditions for use or alternative tools.

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