list_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive ('No toca AutoCAD') and defines the library structure (DWG=piece, folder=category). However, it does not describe return volume, pagination, or how limit/filter parameters affect behavior.

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 at three short sentences and front-loads the purpose. The category enumeration is a bit dense but still readable; each sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has 3 undocumented parameters and no annotations, so the description must explain how to invoke it properly. It explains the domain model but leaves the filtering and limiting parameters unexplained; the output schema covers return shape, but the input semantics are incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives a list of possible categories, which informs the `categoria` parameter, but provides no guidance on `filtro` or `limit`. The description does not explicitly connect the listed folders to the parameter names.

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 the contents of the local MCP library with real measurements ('Que hay en la biblioteca local del MCP, con medidas reales'). It distinguishes itself from drawing tools by explicitly noting it does not touch AutoCAD ('No toca AutoCAD').

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?

It provides clear context that this tool is for library inspection rather than drawing manipulation, and explains the folder-as-category mapping. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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