Docentes de un curso

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

The description discloses the tool's approach: combining contacts, roles, and the grader's name—including a note that the grader method 'usually works in this classroom' (indicating a heuristic). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and gives meaningful insight into the algorithm and its reliability.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second tells when to use it.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's algorithm and usage. It could optionally describe the expected return format (e.g., list of teacher names) to be fully complete, but the current content is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'courseId' is self-explanatory from its name, but the description does not add any additional semantic information (e.g., format, source, validation). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not elaborate beyond what the parameter name implies.

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 tool identifies teachers of a course by combining multiple data sources (contacts, roles, grader). It uses a specific verb+resource ('identifica docentes del curso') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'dutic_list_participants' or 'dutic_get_grades' which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly says 'Úsalo cuando el usuario pregunte quién es su profesor de un curso' (use it when the user asks who their teacher is), providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the unique purpose implies it's the correct tool for that query.

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