unifier_list_bp_records

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read via 'Obtiene'. It says nothing about pagination, result size limits, authentication requirements, or what a shell/BP combination returns, leaving an agent with no operational context.

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 sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than deliberately lean. Front-loading the purpose is fine; the brevity here reflects missing content, not tight editing.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is wholly inadequate. Key behaviors, parameter formats, and return shape are all undocumented.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, and the description explains none of them: filter_condition syntax, lineitem yes/no, record_fields/lineitem_fields formats, and the distinction between bpname and project_number are all absent. With zero schema documentation and zero description compensation, an agent cannot construct a correct 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?

'Obtiene registros de un Business Process para un shell' gives a specific verb (retrieves) plus resource (BP records) and scope (per shell), which distinguishes it from lookup-oriented siblings like unifier_find_bp_record. The trailing endpoint reference adds implementation detail rather than more clarity, and no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g. find_bp_record vs this list tool). Only an endpoint path is given, which is implementation trivia rather than selection guidance.

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