tqs_list_buildings

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the building detection criterion and the root folder default. However, it does not disclose the effect of the depth parameter, return format, or error behavior, which are relevant for a listing tool.

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 concise and well-structured: three short sentences that immediately state the purpose, define key terminology, and note the default. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple list tool with good annotations, the description is mostly complete but misses the depth parameter semantics and does not hint at the return format or whether the listing is recursive. Given the complexity is low, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It implicitly covers 'root' by mentioning the TQS_ROOT environment variable fallback, but it completely omits the 'depth' parameter, leaving unclear how the search depth works. This is a significant gap given only two parameters exist.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List TQS buildings under a root folder.' It specifies the resource (buildings) and the action (list), and even defines what constitutes a building ('a subfolder containing EDIFICIO.DAT'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tqs_building_read, which reads a single building.

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 provides useful context for when to use the tool: to enumerate buildings under a root folder, with a default root from TQS_ROOT. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, so it doesn't fully meet the 'when-not' criterion.

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