resolver_cursada_docente

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions input and output (resolves URLs), but does not state whether authentication is required, whether it makes network calls, what happens on invalid URLs, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that operates on external URLs.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the main verb, includes input format examples, and lists outputs. It contains no fluff and every word adds value.

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?

The tool has low complexity (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return structures. It covers the essential input constraints and output categories. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or prerequisites, but given the output schema and simplicity, this is adequate.

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?

Though schema coverage is 0%, the description explicitly explains the expected format of the 'url' parameter with concrete examples (zona_clases/home/<hash> etc.). This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema definition, effectively compensating for the lack of parameter documentation.

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's function with a specific verb ('Resuelve') and resource ('cursada'), and enumerates the output link types (Cargar Notas, Alumnos, Evaluaciones, Actas, Asistencia). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on single actions or details, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: when given a single URL following specific patterns (zona_clases/home/<hash> or zona_comisiones/home/<hash>). It implies this tool is the entry point to obtain operational links. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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