Descargar un archivo del campus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool downloads a file, returns the local path, and for plain text files returns the content. It notes the default save directory and that the destination folder is created if missing. However, it does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing files, handles errors, or has any rate limits. This is adequate but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 consists of two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the core action and return value. The second paragraph adds defaults and optional parameter guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return values (local path, optional content for plain text). It explains default behavior and optional parameters. However, it omits potential errors, permissions, and file size limits. For a straightforward download tool, it is largely complete but could be more thorough.

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 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value: for 'url' it clarifies it must come from ver_contenido_materia; for 'destino' it explains absolute/relative paths and that the folder is created if needed. For 'nombre' it only mentions default, matching schema. Overall, the description enriches the schema beyond the baseline.

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 tool downloads a file from the campus (apunte, PDF, presentación) using the URL from ver_contenido_materia. The verb 'baja' (download) and resource 'archivo del campus' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like listar_materias and ver_contenido_materia which are for listing and viewing, not downloading.

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 explicitly says to use this tool with the URL from ver_contenido_materia, providing clear usage context. It also explains the default save location and the optional 'destino' parameter. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for non-downloadable files or large downloads) or provide explicit alternatives.

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