tech_list_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core filtering behavior (only type='task' and status='open' items are returned), which is genuinely behavioral. However, it is silent on other behaviors such as pagination, ordering, result limits, or what the only_len flag changes about the response.

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 in Spanish states the action first and the filters immediately after. The only waste is the '(R8)' traceability tag, which adds no value for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. But the two optional parameters are entirely undocumented, and with no annotations the description is the sole source of guidance — thin for anything beyond a default invocation.

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% and the description does not compensate: neither 'project' (presumably a project filter) nor 'only_len' (presumably a count-only mode) is explained anywhere. An agent cannot know how to filter by project or request a length-only result.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista' — lists), a precise resource (open tasks), and embeds the exact filter predicates (type='task', status='open'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tech_get and tech_search, which are single-node retrieval and search operations respectively.

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 usage context is implied by the name and purpose — you call it when you need the list of open tasks — but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternatives like tech_search or tech_get.

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