s21_get_exam_bank_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the local SQLite data source and the read-oriented nature via 'Consulta', but it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free or describe other behavioral traits such as data freshness or permission requirements.

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 focused sentence with the action front-loaded and the result details in a parenthetical list. Every part adds information, and there is no repetition 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the key return contents: registered subjects, question counts per module, attempt history, and averages. It is complete enough for a zero-parameter summary tool, though it could be clearer about whether the statistics cover all saved exams or only user attempts.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty property set, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 names a specific action ('Consulta') and a specific resource ('resumen del banco de preguntas y estadísticas de exámenes'), and enumerates the contained metrics. It does not explicitly contrast with s21_get_bank_questions, but the 'summary/statistics' framing makes the scope reasonably distinct.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would call this when it needs aggregate exam-bank statistics rather than raw questions or saved bank writes. There is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative sibling tools.

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