list_watch_dirs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys a read-only listing operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or how the configured directories are sourced; the output schema presumably covers the return shape.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is 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 no-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is largely adequate. However, the sibling set contains several watch-related tools such as list_watches and watch_hipocampo, and the definition does not disambiguate when list_watch_dirs is the appropriate choice.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. With an empty properties schema and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning, 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 the verb 'Lista' and the specific resource 'directorios configurados para auto-reindexación', making the tool's function clear. It is distinguishable from similar siblings like list_watches by the auto-reindexation scope, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus list_watches, add_watch_dir, remove_watch_dir, or watch_hipocampo. The phrase 'para auto-reindexación' implies a context, but there is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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