uned_ficha

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. It does disclose one meaningful side effect ('También se guarda en ficha.md'), but says nothing about auth/login requirements, whether the operation is read-only or mutating beyond the file write, or rate/aggregation behavior.

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 dense sentence lists the covered content, followed by a short side-effect note about ficha.md. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though the enumeration is long and could be grouped more cleanly.

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 explanation is not required, yet the description restates the payload contents while omitting the parameter format and any routing guidance among many similar siblings. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for a 1-param tool in a crowded toolset.

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% and the single 'asignatura' parameter has no description in the schema. The description only repeats the word 'asignatura' without clarifying expected format (course code, name, ID) or constraints, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 enumerates the concrete contents of the 'ficha' (teaching team/contact, dates and submissions with status, evaluation, statements, syllabus with progress, materials, bibliography, announcements), so an agent knows what resource is being fetched. The verb is only implied (a noun phrase, not 'fetch/aggregate'), and it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like uned_entregas, uned_materiales, or uned_anuncios.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uned_curso_contenido or the specialized uned_entregas/uned_anuncios tools, and no prerequisites or triggers. The agent must infer usage purely from the content list.

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