b24_departments_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add behavioral context by saying the result includes hierarchy and responsible persons, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (limit/start), explicit read-only intent, or response format, leaving notable gaps.

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, front-loaded Spanish sentence that communicates the action and key result characteristics with zero filler. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward list operation.

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 description plus schema provide enough to invoke the tool, but the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves details about return envelope and pagination uncertain. 'Jerarquía' hints at nested data, but not enough to fully predict the response. Adequate, yet with clear gaps.

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 already documents limit, start, and filter with helpful examples (75% coverage), so the description's silence on parameters is partly compensated. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify the undocumented webhook_url field. Overall it neither enriches nor harms parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Lista'), a precise resource ('departamentos de la estructura organizativa'), and useful output details ('jerarquía y responsables'). It is clear that this tool lists organizational departments and includes hierarchy/manager data. None of the sibling tools target departments, so it is effectively differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools like b24_users_list or b24_groups_list. It relies entirely on the resource named in the sentence, so usage context is not explicitly addressed.

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