Eva Actividades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the resource and the optional filter. It does not disclose whether login is required, how many activities are returned, ordering, or any side effects, though it is likely a read operation.

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?

One short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads both the resource and the key filter. It is concise to a fault, sacrificing useful detail, but as a single-purpose line it is efficient.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and the presence of several sibling tools, the description does not supply enough context for reliable selection and invocation. It lacks usage guidance, any mention of prerequisites like login, and behavioral detail that the output schema would not cover.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only names 'curso' and 'seccion' in natural language. It confirms seccion is optional but does not explain expected formats, identifiers, or how the filter behaves.

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 identifies the resource ('activities of a course') and the optional section filter, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like eva_material or eva_calendario. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', so the action is implied rather than stated.

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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving activities tied to a course and optionally a section, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer eva_avisos or eva_material.

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