volkern_list_citas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists appointments with optional filters, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify critical behaviors like pagination, default sorting, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a list tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence—and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted language, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. It efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included), how filters interact, or any limitations (e.g., date range constraints). For a tool with multiple filtering options and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a clear description, including enums for 'estado' and 'tipo'), the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context about how filters combine or their impact on results.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'List appointments with optional filters', which specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('appointments'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'volkern_create_cita' (create) and 'volkern_update_cita' (update), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'volkern_list_contacts' or 'volkern_list_tasks' beyond the appointment focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't specify scenarios for filtering (e.g., when to filter by status vs. date) or compare it to other list tools (e.g., 'volkern_list_interactions' for broader records). Without explicit usage context, the agent must infer based on tool names alone.

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