Listar imágenes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only listing operation and the allowed-root scope, but it does not mention whether subdirectories are recursed, which image formats are considered supported, or how errors are handled.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, then states the returned information and the access boundary.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately names the output fields ('ruta y tamaño') and the access scope. It could state supported formats or recursion behavior, but these are not essential for invoking 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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'carpeta' as 'Ruta del directorio a inspeccionar'. The description adds the 'raíz permitida' constraint but does not clarify path format or relative versus absolute paths, so it adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista'), a clear resource ('imágenes soportadas dentro de un directorio'), and states the output ('ruta y tamaño'). It clearly distinguishes listing from the sibling tools that transcribe, analyze, or process images.

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 the tool is for enumerating supported images in a directory and notes the 'raíz permitida' constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over procesar_carpeta or mention alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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