Listar Indice

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the response format (compact index with specific fields) and the decision-making purpose, but does not disclose details like sorting or pagination behavior. This is modest added value beyond annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function and includes no filler.

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 read-only listing tool, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, and why to use it. However, with no output schema and sibling tools like list_changes/search_changes, a little more distinction would help, so not a 5.

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 covers 80% of parameters with descriptions. The description doesn't add parameter-specific guidance; it only implies the index is compact. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and clearly identifies the resource: a compact index of changes with specific fields (id, title, store, type, tags, paths). It also conveys the purpose of aiding subsequent queries, distinguishing it from similar tools like list_changes.

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 states the context of use: to decide which changes to query later, implying it is a preliminary browsing tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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