listar_archivos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys listing and filtering, but does not state read-only safety, permissions, pagination, or what the returned file/link entries look like.

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 short, front-loaded with the core operation, and the Args block efficiently documents each input. Every sentence adds useful information.

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?

Parameters are adequately documented despite zero schema coverage. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the return shape (what fields a file/link entry has) and usage relative to siblings.

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 must explain parameters, and it does: 'materia' accepts an id or partial name with an example, 'tipo' lists allowed values, and 'buscar' is an optional keyword filter. Some nuance is missing, such as case sensitivity or exactly what 'buscar' searches.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('contenidos (archivos y enlaces) de una materia'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like listar_materias or descargar_archivo, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 purpose implies when to use it: browsing files/links for a subject. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives such as descargar_archivo for downloading a specific file.

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