list_compositions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the output format ('Salida JSON') and implicitly signals a read-only listing operation via 'Lista.' It does not mention error behavior, authorization needs, or whether the project must exist, but for a simple list operation these are relatively minor gaps.

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 a single economical sentence that front-loads the action and object, specifies the file type, and states the output format. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 simple list operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed, for which project, file type, and JSON output. It does not enumerate the JSON fields or pagination behavior, but those are not strictly necessary for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter, 'project,' and the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds context that compositions are .html files, but it does not materially enhance the parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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'), a clear resource ('las composiciones de un proyecto'), and adds a clarifying detail that these compositions are .html files. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tool list_projects, which lists projects themselves.

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 description implies when to use the tool: to list the compositions belonging to a project. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions such as 'use list_projects to discover available projects' or 'use lint_project for validation.' The usage context is acceptable but not richly guided.

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