aula_get_site_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds that the data belongs to the currently authenticated user and the Moodle site, implying a session/auth dependency without stating failure modes or what happens when unauthenticated.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded, though it lacks a leading action verb that would make the intent land faster.

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 and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about the return value, yet it never says which fields (name, email, legajo, site name, etc.) come back. Adequate to identify the tool, insufficient to predict its response.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-wise the description needs to compensate for.

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 names the resource (the logged-in user's data plus Moodle site data from the UTN FRBA virtual classroom) but supplies no verb such as 'retrieve'/'get', and 'Datos' is generic about what is actually returned. It is distinguishable from the action-oriented siblings (forum_post, assign_submit) as a read of identity/site context, but only loosely.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the other aula_* tools, and no prerequisites or follow-up guidance. An agent must infer that it is an identity/bootstrap call to be used before acting on courses or forums.

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