doctrina_list_obras

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload (authors plus statistics), which is meaningful since there is no output schema, but says nothing about authentication, result size, pagination (there is no pagination parameter at all), or freshness of the index.

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 covering scope, source, and return contents with no redundancy. The phrase 'indexados en la base de datos de Open Legal Chile' is slightly verbose but does establish provenance.

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 simple zero-argument read-only listing with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool returns and where the data comes from, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Only the relationship to doctrina_search and any result-size caveats are missing.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; by the stated rule a 0-parameter tool gets the baseline of 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, full-catalogue call.

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 a well-defined resource ('tratados y manuales dogmáticos de doctrina chilena'), and even names what the results contain (autores y estadísticas). It is clearly distinct from a search tool, but never names the sibling doctrina_search to reinforce the boundary.

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 word 'todos' implies an enumeration/browse use case as opposed to a targeted lookup, so an agent can infer when to prefer this over doctrina_search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no named alternative, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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