uned_clases

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful traits: classes may be online or in-person, and access credentials/details are included only if the schedule provides them. It omits error behavior, what happens if sync was never run, and any limits, so disclosure is partial rather than rich.

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?

Two sentences with the resource front-loaded, no filler, and the sync prerequisite placed after the main purpose. Efficient and well-ordered, though not maximally tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format detail is unnecessary, and the sync requirement is covered. However, with two entirely undocumented parameters and no annotation support, the definition stops short of what an agent needs to invoke it with correct arguments.

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 0% and neither parameter is mentioned. The description never explains that 'asignatura' filters by subject/course or that 'incluir_pasadas' toggles inclusion of past sessions, so it does not compensate for the total absence 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?

States a specific resource (clases, jornadas, sesiones) with the fields it returns (day, time, teacher, online/in-person), which is concrete and concrete enough to distinguish from generic event tools. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from close siblings like uned_eventos or uned_calendario_ics, leaving the agent to infer which schedule tool applies.

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?

Gives one genuine precondition – 'Requiere haber sincronizado' (must have synced first), implicitly pointing at uned_sincronizar. It offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives among the many schedule-adjacent siblings, so the usage context is only implied.

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