listar_materias

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It implies a read-only listing and helpfully discloses the shape of the data returned (unread forum counts, available tools per course), but says nothing about authentication, whether results are cached or require sync first, or about side effects.

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?

It is a single compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return fields grouped in a parenthetical list. There is no filler, though the field enumeration partly duplicates what the existing output schema already documents.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value enumeration is somewhat redundant, but the description still omits the parameter behavior and any notion of when the listing should be preferred over its siblings. Adequate for a simple zero-required-parameter list call, but not complete.

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, incluir_ocultas, has 0% schema description coverage, so the description was the only chance to explain it. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess that hidden courses are excluded by default. This is the clearest gap given the 1-parameter surface.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Lista las materias del alumno") and enumerates the payload: commission id, code/commission detail, available tools, and unread forum messages. That is far more informative than the name alone. It never contrasts itself with the sibling tools (listar_temas_foro, novedades, listar_archivos), so the differentiation is only implicit in the resource noun.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. A user could reasonably confuse this with novedades or listar_temas_foro when looking for course-related information, and the description never resolves that ambiguity.

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