list_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by specifying the catalog contains conventional symbols, not actual geometry, and lists exclusions (bathroom typologies, unit blocks). This goes beyond basic listing but does not mention filter behavior or output details.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then adding a caveat and cross-reference. No wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity, the output schema exists, and the description covers the core context—what the catalog contains and what it excludes. The main gap is the lack of explicit parameter behavior, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 one optional parameter 'categoria' with default '', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions categories (electrical, sanitary, equipment) which likely map to valid values, but it does not explicitly explain that the parameter filters results or what the default behavior is. It provides partial meaning but lacks clarity.

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 a catalog of drawable references (electrical symbols, sanitary artifacts, equipment). It explicitly differentiates itself from import_block by noting that real Azcuy geometry is not included, making the purpose precise and distinct from siblings.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: it states that the real Azcuy geometry is not here and is brought with import_block, providing an alternative. This tells the user when to use this tool (for conventional symbols) and when to use another (for Azcuy geometry).

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