aula_list_courses

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 adds valuable output context absent from any output schema: each course includes a `direccion` field intended for aula_open. It doesn't mention auth/session requirements or ordering, but adds real behavioral value beyond annotations.

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 short sentences, zero waste: the first states what is listed, the second delivers the workflow-critical detail (the `direccion` handoff) immediately. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter entry-point tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, user scoping, the returned field that matters, and the next call. Safety is already covered by annotations, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input filtering is needed and instead explains the shape of each returned item, which is the relevant semantic detail here.

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 ('Lista los cursos... en los que está inscripto el usuario') and immediately positions itself in the workflow as 'el punto de entrada', distinguishing it from aula_open by naming the handoff via `direccion`. An agent can identify its role without reading any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the entry point and names the follow-up action (pass `direccion` to aula_open), which tells the agent when to call it first. It does not state exclusions or what to do if the list is empty, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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