Ver contenido de una materia

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 transparently explains the two modes (index vs detail), that detail includes file URLs for later downloading with 'descargar_archivo', and implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state the tool is non-destructive, but the context strongly suggests it.

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 two tightly written paragraphs plus a standalone guiding sentence. Every sentence adds value: first paragraph states purpose, second paragraph explains two modes and mentions file URLs, third sentence gives usage advice. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's dual behavior, the relationship with sibling tools (especially 'descargar_archivo'), and provides a best-practice invocation strategy. An agent can use this tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds extra meaning: for 'unidad', it explains it accepts a name or partial name and that omitting it changes behavior to returning only the index. For 'courseid', it mentions it comes from 'listar_materias', providing valuable contextual sourcing. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explores course material (apuntes, PDFs, videos, tareas, foros) organized by unit. It distinguishes two modes: returning just the index when 'unidad' is omitted, and returning the full detail including file URLs when 'unidad' is provided. This differentiates it from siblings like 'descargar_archivo' or 'ver_trabajos_practicos'.

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 explicit guidance: 'Empezá siempre por el índice: las materias suelen tener decenas de unidades y pedir todo junto es innecesario.' This tells the agent to first call without 'unidad' to get an index, then optionally with 'unidad' for details. It could be more explicit about when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the guidance is clear and practical.

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