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

No se proveen anotaciones, por lo que la descripción carga con todo el peso. Indica que la herramienta escribe en disco ('al disco') y devuelve la ruta local, lo cual es información útil, pero no revela si sobrescribe archivos existentes, qué convención de nombres usa si no se da filename, si requiere permisos de escritura, o qué ocurre en caso de errores de descarga. Para una herramienta con efectos de escritura en el sistema de archivos, esta transparencia es insuficiente.

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?

La descripción es muy breve y directa: tres cláusulas con información esencial (qué hace, con qué argumento, y qué resultado devuelve). La instrucción de usar Read después está bien ubicada al final. Cada frase aporta valor y no hay relleno, aunque la brevedad sacrifica detalles de comportamiento que otras dimensiones penalizan.

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?

Aunque existe output schema, la descripción no detalla el formato de retorno (la ruta local) más allá de mencionarlo, ni explica la estructura de la respuesta. Con solo 2 parámetros y un output schema, el contexto es simple, pero faltan aspectos esenciales para una herramienta con efectos en disco: política de nombres, sobrescritura, ubicación del archivo descargado y manejo de errores. La descripción deja brechas significativas para un agente que deba invocarla correctamente.

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?

La cobertura del esquema es 0%, así que la descripción debe compensar y no lo hace. Aunque dice que fileurl proviene de otras herramientas, no explica el formato esperado ni que sea una URL de Moodle. El parámetro filename aparece en el esquema sin documentación, y la descripción no aclara para qué sirve (nombre local alternativo). No hay orientación sobre valores válidos o comportamiento si se omite filename.

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?

La descripción indica un verbo específico ('Descarga') y un recurso claro (archivo de Moodle vía fileurl), y además explica el resultado (devuelve la ruta local). Se distingue razonablemente de las herramientas hermanas de lectura (fetch_page, Read) y escritura (upload_file) al especificar que descarga al disco. Sin embargo, no menciona explícitamente cómo se diferencia de fetch_page, que también podría recuperar contenido.

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?

La descripción aclara que se usa para archivos cuyo fileurl fue devuelto por otras herramientas, lo que da contexto sobre cuándo usarla. También sugiere usar luego la herramienta Read para leerlo, lo que orienta sobre el flujo posterior. No obstante, no explica cuándo NO usarla o qué alternativa elegir si el archivo es pequeño y podría obtenerse con fetch_page, y no menciona requisitos previos de autenticación.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inicia sesión por web' discloses that the tool authenticates via a web session, and 'devuelve el texto visible' clarifies that it returns rendered visible text, not structured data. It lacks caveats about session state, rate limits, or side effects, preventing a 5.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and output, with a parenthetical that efficiently adds use-case context. There is no filler or repetition, and every component contributes to tool selection and invocation.

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 one required string parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the core behavior and intended use cases well. It is only slightly incomplete in not mentioning URL format expectations or potential web-login failure modes, but it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most scenarios.

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 input schema provides only a bare string 'url' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by indicating the URL must target a page in the virtual classroom and gives typical page types (foros, calificaciones, avisos). It does not clarify whether relative or absolute URLs are required, but it meaningfully constrains the 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 names a specific verb and resource ('devuelve el texto visible de cualquier página del aula virtual') and explicitly distinguishes the tool from the API-based siblings by stating it is useful 'para lo que la API no cubre'. This makes its role as a web-scraping fallback clear.

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?

It gives strong contextual guidance: use the tool when the API does not cover something, with concrete examples (foros, calificaciones, avisos). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state a positive when-not-to-use condition, so a point is held back.

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

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

Al no haber anotaciones, la descripción asume toda la carga de divulgación. 'Detalle' sugiere una operación de lectura y los campos enumerados indican lo que recibirá el agente, pero no declara explícitamente que sea no destructiva ni menciona requisitos de permisos o comportamiento ante errores.

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?

Dos oraciones compactas, con la información principal (campos devueltos) al inicio y el formato de entrada a continuación. No hay relleno ni repetición de lo que ya está en el nombre o en el schema.

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?

La herramienta es simple (un parámetro, sin schema de salida ni anotaciones) y la descripción cubre tanto la sintaxis de entrada como el contenido devuelto. Faltan detalles menores sobre condiciones de error y la naturaleza explícitamente de solo lectura, pero son de bajo riesgo para una herramienta de consulta.

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?

Con una cobertura de descripción del schema del 0%, la descripción compensa plenamente al explicar los formatos aceptados: 'Acepta el cmid numérico o la URL completa (https://.../mod/assign/view.php?id=NNN)'. Esto resuelve la ambigüedad de formato del único parámetro.

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?

La descripción identifica claramente el recurso ('tarea (mod/assign)') y enumera el contenido devuelto ('descripción, fechas, archivos adjuntos y estado de la entrega del usuario'), lo que hace evidente la función de la herramienta. No menciona herramientas hermanas ni las diferencia, por lo que no alcanza la puntuación máxima.

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?

Se infiere el contexto de uso: cuándo se necesita el detalle de una tarea mod/assign. Explica cómo identificar la tarea mediante cmid o URL, pero no incluye cuándo no usarla ni alternativas explícitas, por lo que la guía es implícita en lugar de explícita.

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

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 clearly states that the tool returns sections and modules, and the verb 'Devuelve' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any error behavior, authentication needs, or output format details beyond the general content. This is adequate but not rich for a retrieval tool.

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, focused sentence that starts with the main verb and immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be described in prose. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings, but the core information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 compensate. It does so by linking the tool's scope to 'de un curso', indicating that the course_id parameter identifies the course whose contents are returned. It does not explain where to obtain the course_id or its format, but for a single simple parameter this minimal mapping is acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Devuelve') and a precise resource ('secciones y módulos (tareas, recursos, foros...) de un curso'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_courses (which lists courses) and get_assignment (which fetches a single assignment). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 implies the use case: use this tool when you need the sections and modules of a specific course. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_courses for enumerating courses. The usage context is hinted but not directly specified.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like operation by saying it 'verifies connection and returns data', but it does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free, whether authentication is required, what happens on connection failure, or any rate-limit or session implications. This is minimal transparency for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose (connection verification) and then specifies the returned data. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy with the schema, which is empty.

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?

The tool is low-complexity: zero parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description gives a general sense of the return payload ('site data and authenticated user data') but does not enumerate expected fields or explain edge cases. Since there is no output schema, a slightly richer description of what specific data is returned would improve completeness. Still, the description is adequate for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameter-less tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. The description's mention of the data returned is enough to orient the agent without any input schema detail.

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 ('Verifica' / 'devuelve') and a concrete resource: site data and authenticated user data. It clearly identifies a distinct purpose from the sibling tools, which all focus on courses, files, or assignments. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies usage: it is appropriate for verifying connectivity and retrieving site/user information. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The context of sibling tools makes the intended use reasonably inferable, but the description itself provides limited routing guidance.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the transparency burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation and the phrase 'del usuário' conveys the scope, but the description does not explicitly mention authentication, side effects, ordering, or pagination.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are presented directly and all words contribute meaning.

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 zero parameters, the presence of an output schema, and the low complexity, this description is sufficiently complete. It states what resource is returned and for whom, leaving no critical invocation details missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema describes nothing, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to enhance.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' with a clear resource (courses) and adds the scope 'en los que está inscrito el usuario' (courses the user is enrolled in). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_course_contents or get_site_info.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear, so when an agent needs the user's enrolled courses the usage is easy to infer. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusionary cases.

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

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

Sin anotaciones, la descripción debe cargar con la transparencia. Revela que la herramienta guarda texto/archivos y que con True acepta la declaración de autoría y envía para calificación, pero no menciona si el envío es irreversible ni otras consecuencias. Cubre lo esencial pero deja vacíos sobre efectos secundarios.

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?

Dos frases compactas sin relleno, con la acción principal al inicio y las condiciones y modos a continuación. Es directa y fácil de escanear para el agente.

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?

La definición es útil para una herramienta sin esquema de salida ni anotaciones, pero deja lagunas: no explica cómo identificar la tarea vía cmid_or_url (ni que puede provenir de get_course_contents/get_assignment) y no describe el resultado/confirmación de la operación. Suficiente para un caso simple, incompleta para invocación robusta.

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?

La cobertura del esquema es 0%, por lo que la descripción debe compensar. Explica el significado de online_text, files_itemid (a través de 'itemid de upload_file') y submit_for_grading, pero no documenta el parámetro obligatorio cmid_or_url, que queda sin contexto más allá del nombre.

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?

La descripción usa un verbo específico y recurso claro: 'Guarda una entrega en una tarea' e inmediatamente especifica las modalidades (texto en línea, archivos o ambos) y la condición de envío para calificación. Esto la distingue de hermanas como upload_file, que solo prepara el archivo, al indicar que submit_assignment consume el itemid de upload_file.

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?

Indica explícitamente cuándo usarla: 'Úsala solo cuando el usuario lo pida explícitamente', y aclara cuándo se activa el envío para calificación con submit_for_grading=True. No nombra explícitamente alternativas, pero la referencia a upload_file para obtener el itemid da contexto de flujo.

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

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

No hay anotaciones, por lo que la descripción asume la carga. Aporta comportamientos clave: el archivo va a borradores y no se envía directamente, y devuelve un itemid para el paso siguiente. No detalla permisos ni manejo de errores, pero lo esencial está cubierto.

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?

Una sola oración directa y bien estructurada: primero la acción, luego el resultado y finalmente la relación con otra herramienta. No hay relleno ni información redundante.

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?

La herramienta es simple: un parámetro, sin output schema. La descripción cubre la entrada, el efecto y la salida con el itemid, además de su integración con submit_assignment. Faltan detalles menores como errores o permisos, pero no bloquean la selección ni invocación correcta.

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?

El schema solo define 'path' como string y la cobertura es 0%. La descripción compensa parcialmente al indicar que es un archivo local, pero no especifica formato de ruta, rutas relativas/absolutas ni extensiones permitidas. Añade significado útil aunque limitado.

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?

La descripción usa un verbo específico ('Sube') y un recurso concreto ('archivo local al área de borradores'), y además aclara el output (itemid) y su uso posterior en submit_assignment. Esto la diferencia claramente de herramientas hermanas como download_file.

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?

Indica que el itemid devuelto se usa en submit_assignment(files_itemid=...), lo que sitúa la herramienta en un flujo concreto. No menciona explícitamente cuándo no usarla ni nombra alternativas como download_file, pero el contexto es suficientemente claro.

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