study_pack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: truncation signaling ("puede devolver partial: true" for large units), a per-source reading status (what was read fully vs. not), and the constraint that only external links from allowed sites are read. It stops short of describing cost, latency, or permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then qualified with output shape and the include_content shortcut. The middle enumeration of source types is long and slightly run-on, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing the return payload (per-source text, topic outline with page, reading status, partial flag), which it does well. It omits what to do when partial: true is returned (resume, narrow the unit, or raise max_total_chars), leaving one operational 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 all six parameters are already documented, and the description's note that include_content: false returns only the outline largely repeats the schema's own wording. It adds no extra semantics for unit matching, the character caps, or include_external beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource: aggregate all material for a course unit into one response, enumerating the source types it reads (PDF with tables, Word, PowerPoint, folders, pages, allowed external links). This scope is clearly distinct from single-item siblings like read_file, read_external, download_file or get_course_contents, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear usage context ("para estudiar o resumir") and a concrete preview path via include_content: false ("útil para ver qué hay antes de pedirlo todo"). It does not name alternatives explicitly (e.g., "for a single file use read_file") or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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