explicar_concepto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the output will include a definition, dependencies, study location, and a book/page citation, which gives the agent a clear expectation of the response. It does not mention side effects or error handling, but these are less critical for a read-only explanation tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Explica un concepto', followed by a concise list of content elements. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, what the output will contain, and cites sources. It could mention potential errors or input format, but the core functionality is well-covered. The lack of annotations and output schema is compensated by the descriptive text.

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 a single 'concepto' param with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating that the tool explains a concept, clarifying that 'concepto' is the subject of the explanation. It also describes the content of the explanation, which helps the agent understand what to pass, though it doesn't explicitly map the parameter name.

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: 'Explica un concepto' (explains a concept) with specific sub-details (what it is, dependencies, study location, citation). This differentiates it from sibling 'buscar_concepto', which implies searching rather than explaining. The verb+resource is specific and actionable.

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 context for use (when you need a detailed explanation with source) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'buscar_concepto' or 'obtener_ejercicios' are not referenced, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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