uned_foros

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing scoped to 'recent' debates across all forums, which conveys basic behavior, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or authentication requirements. The 'recientes' framing is the only scope signal given.

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; the scope (all forums of a subject) leads immediately. It is perhaps overly terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 values need not be explained. However, for a tool with 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the 'dias' window and the exact meaning of 'asignatura' identifier unresolved, which is a meaningful gap.

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 both parameters. 'Asignatura' is implied by 'de una asignatura', but the 'dias' parameter (default 30) is never explained — 'recientes' only vaguely gestures at it, leaving the time window undocumented.

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 states a specific resource (recent debates across all forums of a subject) and enumerates the content types included (avisos, dudas por tema, estudiantes). It is clear and distinct enough from siblings like uned_anuncios, though it never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative.

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_anuncios or uned_novedades, which likely overlap in content. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely on its own.

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