Listar instalaciones de SIIGO

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact search sources (Windows registry, server configuration, drive scanning) and detection criterion (folders containing EXCELSIIGO.exe). This adds valuable context about the tool's behavior and what to expect in terms of scope and method.

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 two sentences and immediately front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence contributes: the first defines what the tool returns (installations), the second explains how they are found. No fluff or repetition.

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, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the object (installations), the detection method, and the search areas. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the returned data format (e.g., folder paths, installation names), which is not specified but is reasonably inferred.

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 description does not need to explain any. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-related details because none exist.

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 clearly states the resource (SIIGO Pyme installations) and the action (detected on the computer), and the title explicitly says 'Listar'. It distinguishes from siblings like siigo_list_companies by specifying it scans for folders with EXCELSIIGO.exe. The verb is slightly implicit in the description ('detectadas') but the title and context make it clear.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, relying entirely on the user to infer that it is for listing installations. Given the sibling tools list existing, a brief note on when to choose this over, say, siigo_list_companies or siigo_add_installation would be helpful.

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