Listar materiales de un curso (carpetas expandidas)

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 the tool's behavior: it lists files, expands folders, and returns name, URL, section, and folder. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that no data is modified. The behavioral transparency is adequate but could be strengthened by confirming it is a read-only, non-destructive action.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the main action in the first sentence, then lists return fields, and provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return fields (nombre, URL, sección, carpeta). The tool has only two parameters and is a simple listing operation. The description could mention potential error cases or pagination, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use. It provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool offers.

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 50% (only the `section` parameter has a description in the schema). The description adds context for `section' ('Con `section` filtras a una unidad concreta') reinforcing its filtering purpose. For `courseId`, no additional detail is provided beyond the schema's type and constraints. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description of `courseId`.

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's purpose: listing all downloadable files of a course, expanding folders into real files (slides, readings, etc.). It identifies the specific verb ('Lista'), resource ('archivos descargables de un curso'), and scope (expanding folders). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dutic_list_course_files which might not expand folders, and dutic_get_course_contents which is likely structural.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Úsalo para saber qué materiales hay, y por qué unidad, antes de leer o descargar.' It explains when to use the tool (before reading or downloading) and how to filter with the `section` parameter. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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