Personas del aula

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of what comes back - each person's status, access type, chosen course, activated courses - and, critically, that emails and phones are deliberately omitted, which an agent must know before deciding this tool suffices for a contact lookup.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the scope/read-only tag and closing with the exclusion. Nothing is padded; the only mild redundancy is the read-only tag, which the annotations already state.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source for return-value content, and it does list the returned fields plus what is withheld. Pagination and filtering are covered by the schema, and the required aula identifier is schema-documented, so little is missing for a simple read tool.

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 75% - status and offset are described, classroom_id carries a short 'Aula' label, but limit has no description at all. The prose adds nothing about filtering by status, page size, or pagination, so the schema does nearly all the work and the one unlabeled parameter (limit) stays uncommented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista a las personas del aula') and enumerates exactly what each member record carries: status, access type, chosen course, activated courses. It does not name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of 5, but an agent can readily tell it apart from remove_member, get_student_detail, or list_access_requests.

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: the '[Equipo del aula · solo lectura]' tag and the closing 'Sin correos ni teléfonos' hint that this is a roster read and not a place to get contact data (that's get_student_detail-adjacent territory). There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no stated prerequisite beyond 'solo lectura'.

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