read_external

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so scope is partly covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: an allowlist of sites, the UTN_MCP_EXTERNAL_ALLOW extension mechanism, and the guarantee that no cookies or Campus data are sent. Conversion to Markdown is also disclosed; only response structure/pagination remains implicit.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by input forms and safety constraints. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence packs the allowlist and no-cookie guarantees together somewhat tightly.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it fetches, how it converts, where to obtain input, and network restrictions. Only return-format specifics (size limits, truncation) are absent, which is minor.

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% and the single 'url' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the same accepted formats (external URL, URL module ID, /mod/url/view.php?id=…) without adding new syntax or constraints, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (read/lee) and resource (external public content linked from the course), enumerates the supported formats (.ipynb, Colab-on-GitHub, GitHub files/README, Gist) and notes Markdown conversion. An agent can separate this from read_file/download_file because it is explicitly about external links rather than Campus-hosted resources.

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?

Explains the trigger context (content the cátedra links externally) and how to obtain the input, pointing to external_url in get_course_contents. It also clarifies accepted input forms (raw URL or Campus URL module ID). Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement against e.g. read_file for Campus-hosted files.

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