Detalle completo de una tarea

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral details: returns specific fields (dateConflict, datesInDescription), and instructs on handling date discrepancies. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but the tool appears read-only and the description is transparent about its output.

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 concise, with four sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value: listing contents, highlighting important fields, providing usage guidance. No redundant information.

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 simple input schema (one parameter) and no annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, special fields handling, and when to use it. It also references a sibling tool for reading attachments, providing a complete context.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing a brief description for the single parameter 'cmid'. The tool description adds context by connecting cmid to assignment identity but does not elaborate on format or usage beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns all assignment details: instructions, attachments, dates, submission status, grade, and grader. It uses a specific verb ('devuelve') and resource ('tarea'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dutic_read_resource.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Úsalo cuando el usuario pregunte qué pide una tarea o cuándo se entrega.' It also instructs to alert the user if dateConflict is true. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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