Arquivo para o visualizador

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld, so the description correctly focuses elsewhere: it discloses that results are paged ('em partes') and confined to the outputs folder, which the annotations do not cover. It does not state chunk size or total part count, but the paging model itself is a meaningful addition.

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 that leads with the internal-use constraint, then explains the mechanism. No filler, and the most important warning comes first.

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 2-parameter internal tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description gives the agent everything it needs: what it returns, from where, in what shape, and that it should not be called directly. Only the chunking size semantics are left implicit, which is minor for a tool agents shouldn't invoke.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (nome, parte) are documented there with bounds, so the baseline applies. The description's 'em partes' reinforces the parte parameter's intent but adds no format or sizing detail 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?

States a concrete verb and resource: it returns a file from the outputs folder, chunked into parts, and explicitly scopes the tool to the Claude Desktop viewer (Download/Watch/Listen buttons). That scoping cleanly separates it from siblings like flow_baixar without needing the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit exclusion: 'Não use diretamente' with the condition that it is internal to the viewer buttons. It stops short of naming the sibling an agent should use instead for agent-initiated downloads (e.g., flow_baixar), so routing is clear but not fully closed.

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