Monthly Archive List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but the tool is a zero-parameter read that only enumerates archives, so little needs disclosing. It confirms the scope is "todos ... disponibles" yet says nothing about ordering, filtering, or whether archived data is read-only.

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 with no filler; the verb and scope arrive immediately and nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool has no inputs, so the description does not need to explain return values. What it lacks is any hint of how the listed archives relate to the sibling monthly_archive tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes nothing on the description and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning needs to be added.

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 names a specific verb ("Lista") and resource ("meses-signo archivados disponibles"), so the agent knows this enumerates available archives rather than retrieving one. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling monthly_archive, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: a tool that lists what is available is naturally a discovery step before calling monthly_archive, but the description never says so or states any precondition. No when-not guidance and no named alternative.

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