listar_conductores

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Lista' implies a read operation but the description does not state it is read-only, whether results are filtered, paginated, or scoped, nor what the two input filters actually narrow. Only the existence of an output schema keeps this from being lower.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded with the verb, containing no redundant filler. Its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing, but structurally it is efficient.

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 two undocumented filters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the description leaves the filtering behavior, scope, and relationship to the conductor-specific siblings unexplained.

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 0% and the description does not mention the parameters 'nivel' or 'familia' at all. An agent gets no hint of what values these filters accept or how they constrain the returned products, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 gives a clear verb ('Lista') and resource ('productos BT/MT trazables de la biblioteca técnica'), so the action is understandable. However, the tool is named listar_conductores (conductors) yet the description never uses the word 'conductor' or explains the relationship to the conductor siblings (obtener_conductor, aplicar_conductor), creating a naming/content mismatch. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from other listing tools such as listar_elementos or listar_referencias_ampacidad.

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 tool, when not to, or which alternative to prefer. Given many sibling listing tools exist, some routing context would be valuable, but none is provided.

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