s21_open_exam_simulator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does surface a key behavioral trait: passing start_exam:true initiates the exam immediately 'sin requerir clics manuales'. However, it omits other significant side effects such as starting a local HTTP server (hinted only by the port parameter) and opening an application-mode window (hinted by auto_open). The core launch-and-navigate behavior is disclosed, but not the auxiliary runtime effects.

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 compact at two sentences, with purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and flow directives in the second. The feature enumeration ('preparación de parciales tipo API, temporizador, banco de preguntas SQLite y notas') adds some clutter but is brief. No sentence is wasted; the structure is logical and scannable.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must do heavy lifting. It covers the launch target and auto-start flow, but leaves gaps: no differentiation from s21_open_interactive_portal, no mention of the local-server/port behavior as a runtime consequence, and no indication of what the tool returns or confirms after launch. The incomplete mode enumeration relative to the schema further weakens completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds flow-level meaning by explaining how course_id, mode, and start_exam interact to produce an immediate exam start. However, it introduces a discrepancy: it lists mode values as only 'exam' or 'practice', omitting the schema's third enum value 'real_exam', which could mislead an agent into believing that mode is unsupported.

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 verb and resource: 'Abre el portal institucional interactivo posicionado directamente en el Simulador de Exámenes'. It names the destination within the portal (exam simulator) and lists its features (API-based quizzes, timer, SQLite question bank, notes). This distinguishes it from the sibling s21_open_interactive_portal by specifying where the portal lands, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 'DIRECTIVA DE FLUJO' provides how-to guidance for combining course_id, mode, and start_exam to auto-start an exam without manual clicks. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the near-sibling s21_open_interactive_portal. Usage context is implied through the exam-simulator feature set rather than stated.

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