roiq_montaje_list_sources

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states grouping by project and sorting by script order, indicating a read-only listing. However, it omits side-effect information, access requirements, or response format, which are gaps for a tool that likely mutates nothing but still needs safety context.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and grouping logic. It is efficient, though a brief example of the parameter usage would improve clarity without adding much length.

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?

Given no output schema and one parameter, the description provides basic context. However, it lacks details on return structure (list of items? fields?) and any constraints (e.g., pagination, required project state). For a tool with low complexity, this is adequate but not complete.

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 schema has 1 parameter 'proyecto' with 0% description coverage. The description mentions grouping by project but doesn't explicitly link to the parameter or explain its purpose. The agent must infer that 'proyecto' might filter or specify the project, which is insufficient.

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 lists available takes for editing ('Lista las tomas disponibles para montar'), grouped by project and in script order. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like roiq_montaje_list or roiq_list_items, though 'tomas' could be more precisely defined.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., roiq_montaje_list, roiq_montaje_status). The description implies it's for pre-editing selection but doesn't state exclusion criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent with limited context.

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