listar_eventos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the result includes confirmation counts, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as sorting, pagination, or auth requirements. This matches the lower burden for annotation-covered tools but is not especially rich.

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 says exactly what the tool returns with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete. There are no prerequisite inputs to explain and the key return characteristic, confirmation count, is included.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain in the description. Schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description instead clarifies the return content, which is appropriate. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics require no compensation.

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 a specific verb and resource: listing the user's events, and adds the distinguishing detail that it includes the confirmation count. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like ver_evento (individual event detail) and listar_invitados (invitees).

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 phrase 'eventos del usuario' provides clear context for the tool's scope: use it when the goal is to retrieve the current user's event list with confirmation counts. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the singular/plural contrast with ver_evento and the mention of counts supply enough contextual signal for a simple parameterless listing tool.

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