doctrina_list_obras

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that results include authors and statistics, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering for a tool that returns the entire corpus.

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 front-loaded sentence led by the verb, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is dense with clauses but every clause (sources, authors, statistics) carries information.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description does enough by naming the covered corpus and the shape of the return (obras, autores, estadísticas). Missing only practical detail about result size or pagination.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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?

States a specific verb (Lista) and resource (tratados y manuales dogmáticos de doctrina chilena) with scope (indexados en la base de datos de Open Legal Chile). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling doctrina_search, which an agent must infer from the 'todos' phrasing.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is given and no alternatives are named. The word 'todos' only implicitly suggests this is a full-enumeration tool as opposed to doctrina_search, but the agent is left to infer that contrast on its own.

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