Listar Snapshots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'listar' (to list) implicitly signals this is a read-only operation and does not mention side effects, which is good. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or require no special permissions, nor does it disclose any details about the data freshness or ordering. For a non-destructive tool, this is an acceptable but not rich disclosure.

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?

The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Lista ... respaldos'), includes the file pattern, and adds a parenthetical purpose. Every part earns its place; there is zero padding or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given there is an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The one required parameter is named and related to a project, and the purpose is stated. The main gap is the lack of any behavioral annotations, since the tool relies on the description for context, but for a simple list tool this is mostly sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully explain the parameter. It literally says 'de un proyecto', which matches the parameter name 'proyecto' and adds a slight relational meaning (the backups belong to a project). However, it does not specify whether the value should be a project ID, name, or any other format. This adds little semantic value beyond the variable name itself, so the score is low.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Lista los respaldos .bak-<fecha> de un proyecto' (lists the .bak-<date> backups of a project). It also adds the purpose '(para restaurar)', which sharpens intent. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'snapshot' or 'restaurar_snapshot', but the resource and action are clear enough without opening the schema.

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 description implies usage in a restoration context ('para restaurar'), giving a rough sense of when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like 'restaurar_snapshot' or 'snapshot'. The guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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