uned_calendario_ics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses the destination path and the .ics format with its interoperability target, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, whether the file is created or appended, auth requirements, or refresh semantics for a file-writing operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first, the sources enumerated, and the output location appended. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description supplies enough: what is exported and where. The only gap is the write/overwrite behavior of the target file, which the output schema cannot cover.

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 the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for undocumented inputs, and the schema is fully self-describing by virtue of being empty.

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 ('Exporta') and enumerates the resources it aggregates (entregas, eventos, clases/jornadas), placing the output at a concrete path. It's clearly distinguishable from sibling source tools, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives or data sources.

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 parenthetical ('importable en Google/Outlook') implies the use case — feeding a calendar app — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites, and no note on when this should be preferred over reading the individual sibling tools.

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