Cursos del aula

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description's "solo lectura" merely restates the read-only nature. It does add value by disclosing the return payload semantics (published state and editability per course), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when the caller has no access to the classroom.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by the two per-course attributes it returns. The bracketed prefix conveys scope and safety but is slightly redundant with the annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and return fields, which is close to sufficient. Missing are only minor operational details like result ordering or behavior when the classroom is not accessible.

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%, with classroom_id typed as a UUID and described as "Aula", so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier's origin (e.g. that it comes from list_my_classrooms), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Lista los cursos del aula" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (courses of a classroom), and even names what each item reports: whether it is published and whether the caller can edit it. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_my_classrooms, so an agent must infer the difference from the classroom_id parameter.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as list_my_classrooms (which lists classrooms rather than courses) or get_course_outline. The only hints are the "Equipo del aula" tag and the required classroom_id, which imply a per-classroom scope but state nothing explicitly.

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