list_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explains that the tool returns a categorized list of tools with descriptions and use cases, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose response structure, pagination, or other behavioral details.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and output content without redundant or extraneous wording. Every part contributes meaning.

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 read/list tool, the description is adequate: it states what is returned and the schema documents both parameters. While there is no output schema or annotations, the tool's behavior is low-risk and the description covers the essential return values ('descripción y casos de uso').

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 provides full coverage for all parameters, including descriptions, enums, and defaults. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Lista herramientas') and resource ('de ciberseguridad'), with additional context on organization by category and inclusion of descriptions and use cases. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like describe_tool.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_tool, get_cheatsheet, or explain_attack. The only implied usage is for listing tools by category, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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