exportar_cursada_docente

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need for specific URLs but does not state that the tool writes files to the output directory, whether it overwrites existing files, or any side effects. The output behavior is only vaguely implied by the output_dir parameter, leaving significant 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 is two sentences long with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a critical prerequisite. Both sentences provide essential information without redundancy.

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?

Although the output schema exists, the description lacks context on the file-writing side effects and full parameter semantics. For a tool that exports and likely creates files, the absence of any mention of where files are written or what happens to them makes the description incomplete. It would benefit from clarifying that files are generated in output_dir with a given basename.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the format for the two required URL parameters but does not clarify the meaning of 'basename' or 'output_dir', which have defaults but still need context. Half of the parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 verb 'Exporta' (exports), the resource 'alumnos + notas de una cursada' (students + grades of a course), and the output formats 'CSV, XLSX y JSON'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'alumnos_cursada_docente' and 'notas_cursada_docente' which likely retrieve data without exporting to multiple file formats.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need to export student and grade data to CSV, XLSX, or JSON. It also specifies required input URLs with a format hint ('zona_clases/home/<hash> y zona_comisiones/home/<hash>'), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid this tool.

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