Eva Cursos

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

The verb 'Lista' implies a non-mutating read operation, but no annotations are provided and the description does not mention prerequisites such as EVA login, pagination, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple list tool but does not fully carry the behavioral burden.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the expected fields in a compact and readable way.

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 that the tool takes no inputs and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete for invoking it correctly. The only minor gaps are lack of explicit authentication context and no guidance about when a sibling tool would be preferred, but neither prevents correct use.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema conveys all parameter information; the baseline is 4. The description adds value by revealing the output fields (id, nombre, código), which sets expectations for the returned data.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lista' and names the exact resource, 'los cursos matriculados en el EVA', followed by the returned fields (id, nombre, código). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as eva_material or eva_calendario, which target different resources.

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 makes the context clear: use this tool to list the courses the user is enrolled in. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria across the siblings, but for a zero-parameter list tool the intended use is readily inferable and unambiguous.

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