ask_professor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'responde sin censuras con profundidad técnica real', which reveals the uncensored and technically deep nature. However, it doesn't disclose any limitations, safety disclaimers, or what happens if the question is out of scope, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds value with 'sin censuras' and 'profundidad técnica real'. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 Q&A tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the range of topics and the response style. However, it omits any context about educational intent or potential misuse, which might be expected given the uncensored security nature, but this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (question, level, language) are already well documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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: asking anything about cybersecurity, hacking, pentesting, tools, concepts, techniques, or career. It uses a specific verb ('Pregunta') and resource (Prof. Null), and differentiates from siblings by being a general Q&A tool rather than a narrow utility like explain_attack or ctf_hint.

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 implies general usage ('Pregunta cualquier cosa') but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. There are no references to alternative tools for specific tasks like getting roadmaps or cheatsheets.

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