aula_read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond that: pagination limits (only what fits in one response), scanned PDFs returned as page images, and error behavior for unsupported formats. No permissions or rate-limit details, but the behavior profile is solid.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each with a distinct job (what it reads, how pagination works, what fails). Front-loaded with capabilities and zero filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers supported formats, partial-return behavior, continuation mechanism, and failure mode. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it explains why `desde` exists (skipping to a part) and that `siguiente` points to the next chunk, which clarifies the pagination semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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 a file from the virtual classroom) and enumerates the supported formats (PDF, docx, pptx, xlsx, images, text). It also implicitly differentiates from the sibling aula_open by noting the `url` comes from that tool's output.

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 operational guidance: files come back in parts, `siguiente` tells where to continue, and `desde` lets you jump. Unsupported formats are covered with the fallback behavior (error with download URL). It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer a sibling, but the context is clear.

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