list_graphs

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely useful trait beyond the schema: Adobe libraries are hidden from the listing, which affects what the agent will and won't see. It omits other relevant behavior such as read-only nature (only implied by 'Lista'), ordering, and what a returned entry contains.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the filtering caveat follows immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is enumerated and one important filtering behavior. It could say more about the shape of the returned package/graph entries, but the essential information for calling it correctly is present.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description does not introduce any parameter concepts that conflict with the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lista los paquetes abiertos y sus grafos de composicion'), so the agent knows it enumerates open packages together with their composition graphs. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_nodes or get_app_info, which is the only thing keeping this from a 5.

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 such as list_nodes or open_graph. The word 'abiertos' implies a scope (only open packages), but that is inference rather than guidance, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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