listar-mis-cv

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden and falls short: it doesn't say what "muestra" returns (file, URL, parsed text), what happens when no CV is attached, or whether a session is required. The name implies a list ("listar") while the description implies a single attached CV, adding ambiguity.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is arguably part of the under-specification problem captured elsewhere.

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 trivial zero-param read tool this may be sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations, the agent has no idea what the returned payload looks like, which is the tool's entire value. A clause about the returned CV representation would close the gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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 has a clear verb+resource combination ("Muestra el CV adjunto") and distinguishes itself from the write-oriented sibling subir-cv. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, but the read/display intent versus upload is inferable from verb choice.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as ver-mi-perfil or ver-perfil-maestro, which likely also surface CV-related info. No prerequisites (e.g., session/auth or a previously uploaded CV) are mentioned.

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