list_course_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool 'crea referencias locales seguras', implying it may set up local caching or pointers—a useful nuance not present in annotations. However, it does not elaborate on what these references are, whether there are side effects, or any rate limits, so value beyond annotations is modest.

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, short sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (listing downloadable files) before mentioning the secondary behavior (creating local references). There is no fluff or redundant phrasing. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary details, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain pagination, section filtering, the return format, or what 'safe local references' actually look like. An agent trying to call this tool correctly with non-default parameters would have no guidance, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description is the only source for parameter meaning, but it mentions none of the parameters (course_id, limit, offset, section_id). It does not explain that limit/offset are pagination controls, that section_id filters by section, or that course_id is required. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess parameter purposes.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista') and a clear resource ('archivos descargables' of a course), and it adds the extra behavior of creating safe local references for reading. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_course_contents (which likely lists all content) and read_course_resource (which likely reads a single resource). However, 'safe local references' is a bit vague, leaving some ambiguity about the exact output nature.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_course_resource or list_course_contents. It does not mention that this tool should be used first to obtain resources before reading them, nor does it explain any filtering or pagination conditions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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