Listar personagens do Flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only character names are returned (not full objects), which is mildly useful, but says nothing about ordering, empty-project behavior, or default resolution beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentence with the resource stated first and the usage hint trailing. No filler, though the parenthetical slightly dilutes the front-loaded statement.

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?

A simple read-only tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and annotations covering its behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly; no output schema is required for a list of names.

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 description coverage is 100% and the `projeto` parameter already documents id/link/name and the default fallback to flow_projeto_padrao. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lista os nomes dos personagens do projeto do Flow") and even narrows the return to names, which separates it from the sibling mutation tools flow_personagem_criar/editar/excluir. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, keeping it short of a 5.

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 parenthetical "(para usar em personagens: [...] nas gerações)" gives a downstream purpose, implying why an agent would call it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over flow_projetos or flow_listar, and no exclusions.

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