list_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully adds what kinds of items are returned and that they are grouped by topic/section, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler that enumerates the resource types and their organization. Efficient, though it packs a list rather than leading with the core action.

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 read-only, single-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is essentially complete. The only minor gap is return shape/ordering, which is not strictly required since no output schema exists but would help.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage (including the example '126' and the pointer to list_courses), the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the course scoping implied by 'dentro de una materia'.

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?

It states a specific verb (listar) plus resource (materiales de estudio, enlaces, páginas, archivos) and the organizing dimension (tema/sección dentro de una materia). Very clear what it returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like read_file or list_assignments.

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?

Usage is implied by 'dentro de una materia', and the course_id schema text routes the agent to list_courses first. However, the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative tool guidance.

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