Participantes de un curso

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination handling ('recorriendo la paginación'), the group visibility limitation, and the performance impact of the withEmail option ('más lento'). Missing details on error conditions or idempotency, but adequately covers key behaviors.

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: one longer sentence listing functionality and a clarifying note on groups. Information-dense without fluff, though slightly verbose in the first sentence. Still concise and well-structured for a non-trivial tool.

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 complexity (pagination, group visibility, optional email) and lack of output schema, the description covers use cases, caveats, and returned fields. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke and what parameters to use.

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 50% (only withEmail has a description). The description adds meaning: explains that withEmail resolves institutional email and is slower. For courseId, no additional context beyond schema type and range. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but does not add detail for the required parameter.

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 (list) and specific resource (participants of a course), with explicit attributes returned (name, role, group, last access, optionally email). It differentiates from sibling tools like dutic_find_person or dutic_get_course_teachers by focusing on all participants with pagination and group context.

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 clear context: use it to know who classmates are or determine a person's group. It also warns about separated groups limiting visibility. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools for specific scenarios.

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