aya_toolsets_listar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the result is tied to the current initialization, implying that active toolsets may vary between sessions. This is useful beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentence that conveys both the operation and the key nuance about active status. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 0-parameter, read-only, idempotent listing tool, the description fully specifies what the tool returns conceptually: the toolsets and their active state. No output schema exists, but the described outcome is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it 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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The description needs to convey no parameter meaning, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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') and a precise resource ('toolsets do AyA-MCP'), and adds the exact scope: which toolsets are active in this initialization. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aya_toolsets_sugerir, which suggests rather than lists.

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 makes its usage context clear: an agent should call this when it needs to know available toolsets and their active status for the current initialization. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but the resource and action are specific enough that no exclusion is necessary for this simple 0-parameter read tool.

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