listar_elementos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only names the returned element categories. It says nothing about whether a workspace must exist, whether results are scoped to the active project, ordering, size, or return format — all relevant for an inventory call.

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 zero filler, correctly front-loaded on the verb and the enumerated resources. Nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it identifies what is listed without explaining scope, prerequisites, or the shape of the result. There is no output schema to compensate, so a bit more context would help.

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 tool takes zero parameters (empty properties object, 100% coverage of nothing), so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista') and enumerates exactly which element types are returned (buses, líneas, transformadores, cargas, generadores), which distinguishes it from the many sibling mutation tools like agregar_linea or agregar_transformador. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the workspace context it presumably operates in. The agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart to the agregar_* tools.

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