Listar entradas de la bitácora

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that this lists local entries (scope) and that grouping produces subtotals, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose the read-only nature explicitly, whether any side effects occur, or what the output format is. The absence of annotations and output schema means more detail could be expected, but the description gives a reasonable overview.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning: lists entries, scope (local), filter parameter, and grouping option.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, all documented in the schema, but it lacks an output schema and annotations. The description covers the essential behavior (filtering, grouping, scope) but does not describe return value structure or any side effects. For a list operation with moderate complexity, the description is adequate but could be more complete with details about the output format or how grouping orders results.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds the context of 'local' filtering and that grouping includes subtotals, which enhances the schema's basic parameter descriptions. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond clarifying the grouping behavior.

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 says 'Lista las entries de la bitácora local filtrando por status, opcionalmente agrupadas' which clearly states the verb (list), resource (entries), and key filtering behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like get_time_entries (which may fetch remote/other entries) and upload_entries (which sends entries), though it doesn't explicitly note the distinction.

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 context (local bitácora entries, filtering by status, optional grouping) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_time_entries or upload_entries. It doesn't provide exclusions or alternative suggestions, so the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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