open

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds that it returns structured content, internal activities, and a parent link, which helps the agent understand output behavior without an output schema. It omits auth, rate-limit, or error behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence covers scope, examples, and return behavior with no wasted boilerplate. It remains readable despite its length.

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 navigation tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains input scope, what is returned, and parent-link navigation. It could mention prerequisites or how nested activities are handled, but the core is covered.

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%, and the schema thoroughly documents id_or_url and section_id. The description enumerates element types that map to id_or_url but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Entra a...') and enumerates the Moodle resource types it opens, so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_assignment or list_courses, so sibling differentiation is only implicit through 'navegación jerárquica unificada'.

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 the tool is for opening and navigating any Moodle element by ID/URL, and mentions the parent link for navigation. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus list_* or get_* alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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