uned_materiales

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that materials are 'descargados' (previously downloaded) and that results include page counts and an extracted-text path, implying a read-only listing. However, it does not state side effects, permissions, or whether it triggers downloads.

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 resource and the returned fields are stated efficiently.

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, and the description still names the key fields. For a simple single-parameter query tool the definition is nearly sufficient, missing only parameter format and usage alternatives.

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. It does identify that the subject (asignatura) scopes the query, but gives no format guidance (course code vs. name, casing) for a string parameter that has no schema description.

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 (listar) and resource (materiales descargados de una asignatura), plus hints at returned fields (nº de páginas, ruta del texto extraído). It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like uned_curso_contenido or uned_leer, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is used to enumerate materials for a given subject. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of alternatives such as uned_curso_contenido or uned_leer for accessing content.

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