Tareas de un curso

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that hidden tasks are included (hidden=true), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The lack of a readOnlyHint or destructiveHint means the agent must assume unknown risk.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose and key behavioral detail (hidden tasks) efficiently. While it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., a brief note on input format), it remains appropriately concise.

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 tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat complete for a simple list operation. It explains what tasks are retrieved (including hidden ones). However, it omits information about output format, potential pagination, or whether the list is ordered. This is adequate for a minimal tool but leaves some gaps.

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 0% – the schema has no descriptions for its sole parameter 'courseId'. The description mentions 'de un curso concreto' but does not explain what the courseId represents (e.g., 'the numeric course ID from the course list'). With zero schema documentation, the description should fully compensate, but it does not, leaving the parameter semantics unclear.

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 clearly states the verb 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'tareas de un curso' (tasks of a course), with the added detail of including hidden tasks. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like 'dutic_list_tasks' which likely has broader scope. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings, so it is strong but not perfect.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'dutic_list_tasks' or 'dutic_get_assignment_detail'. There are no use cases, exclusions, or prerequisities mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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