Mis colecciones

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context — and it does, disclosing the teacher-account scope and that each collection is returned together with its courses. It stops short of noting ordering, whether empty collections appear, or scale/limits.

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 bracketed qualifier plus one sentence, with the read-only/account constraint front-loaded before the action. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent what is returned (collections plus their courses) and under which account type. A brief note on result ordering or size would close the remaining gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent inputs and reinforces that no filtering arguments exist.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Lista") with a specific resource ("tus colecciones de cursos") and even states the payload shape ("con los cursos de cada una"). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it never names the collection-mutating siblings (save_collection, delete_collection, move_course_to_collection) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by "[Cuenta docente · solo lectura]": an agent can infer this is the read path for a teacher's own collections, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_courses or the save/delete/move/reorder collection tools. No exclusions or preconditions beyond the account type are given.

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