Eva Descargar Material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose path normalization behavior, which is useful, but it omits filesystem side effects such as directory creation or overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, and failure behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: the action and return behavior are front-loaded, followed by the path-format caveat. Every sentence carries necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The output schema likely covers return structure, but a required parameter (`curso`) remains undefined in both schema and description. The description also does not mention authentication or prerequisites, despite the existence of an eva_login sibling, so an agent cannot reliably know how to construct a valid call.

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 description adds meaningful semantic value for `destino` by specifying accepted path formats and automatic normalization, which the schema lacks entirely. However, `curso` is left completely undocumented, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the overall gap.

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 states a specific action ('Descarga los materiales de un curso'), the target resource, the destination, and the return value ('devuelve las rutas'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eva_material, which likely deals with material metadata rather than downloading.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eva_material or eva_login. The intended use case is only implicitly inferable from the verb 'Descarga', and no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool pointers are provided.

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