unifier_list_shells

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose real behavior: the response is paginated ('una página de items') and includes total and summary, plus the constraint not to enumerate beyond items. It omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, and any note on what filtering is applied by default.

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?

Two tight sentences, both front-loaded: capabilities first, then the result-count caveat. No filler, though the output caveat could have been merged into the first sentence.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (items/total/summary) and the pagination model. But for a tool with five undocumented parameters and no annotations, it leaves too much unsaid about inputs and filtering to be considered complete.

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% for five parameters, and the description never mentions type, limit, offset, status, or filter_condition. Only the word 'página' indirectly hints at limit/offset, leaving the enum values and filter syntax entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Lista proyectos/shells de Unifier') and even names the underlying API surface (V1 admin/projectshell), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as unifier_audit_inactive_shells or unifier_read_shell_360.

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 only guidance is about interpreting results ('usa total para el recuento exacto'), not about when to choose this tool over the other shell-related siblings. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no named alternatives.

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