volkern_list_contratos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation (listing) but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by 'page'/'limit' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no filters. The mention of 'optional filters' hints at flexibility but lacks depth.

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 (4 words) and front-loaded with the core action ('List contracts'). There is zero wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., contract fields, pagination metadata), error conditions, or usage context. The lack of behavioral transparency and parameter guidance leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by hinting at filtering ('optional filters'), but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions (e.g., combining 'estado' and 'search') or default behaviors. It doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'page' and 'limit' parameters beyond what the schema implies.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('contracts'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'volkern_get_contrato' (singular retrieval) by implying it returns multiple contracts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'volkern_list_cotizaciones'), leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify if this is for browsing all contracts versus filtered searches, or when to prefer it over other list tools (e.g., 'volkern_list_deals'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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