agent_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and 'Lista' implies a read-only operation without stating it explicitly. The description does disclose the output content (descriptions, forensic competencies, assigned tools), which is useful, but it adds nothing about behavior beyond the obvious semantics of a listing operation.

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 well-formed Spanish sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then packs in the content details with no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the Spanish language matches the sibling tool set.

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 zero-parameter catalog listing with no output schema, the description sufficiently tells an agent what it will get (the 17 agents with descriptions, competencies, and tools) and why it would call this tool. Minor omissions like output language or whether the catalog is static are not material for a tool of this simplicity.

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 the baseline is 4 and the schema imposes no burden. The description adds value by indicating what the returned catalog entries contain (descriptions, competencies, tools), which compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('el catálogo de los 17 agentes jurídicos especializados de Open Legal Chile') and spells out the content scope (descripciones, competencias forenses, herramientas asignadas). It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like agent_export_subagents or agent_run.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when-not-to-use, no prerequisites, and no reference to related agent tools such as agent_run or agent_export_subagents. For a simple catalog tool the use case is fairly obvious, but the description itself provides zero routing guidance.

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