uned_curso_contenido

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no auth/enrollment prerequisites, no pagination or size behavior for course content. One short noun phrase is inadequate for a data-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no filler, and the cross-reference to uned_cursos is placed where it is immediately useful. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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-value description is unnecessary, and there is only one required parameter. Still, the description leaves the read-only/mutation character and any access prerequisites unstated, which for a zero-annotation tool is a real gap an agent must guess around.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the sole parameter. It does add value by stating the courseid must come from uned_cursos, but it never clarifies the expected type, format, or that the value is an integer course identifier as opposed to a name or slug.

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 names the exact resource and scope: the sections and resources belonging to one specific course. It does not give an explicit verb (get/list), but the noun phrase clearly identifies what an agent would retrieve and distinguishes it from sibling course-level tools like uned_cursos.

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 '(usa el id de uned_cursos)' points the agent at the sibling tool that supplies the required courseid, which is useful routing. However, it gives no condition for when this tool is the right choice versus siblings like uned_materiales or uned_ficha, and no exclusions.

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