Listar itens do Estúdio

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 useful context by specifying that results include estado, duração, id, and AI usage. It does not contradict the annotations and adds meaningful return-value detail beyond them.

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 with no redundant or filler text. It efficiently covers the action, the resource, the returned item types, and the extra AI usage information.

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?

Given a one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is listed and which fields are returned. It only lacks sibling-routing guidance, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 single 'notebook' parameter is already documented as accepting id, URL, or partial title. The description adds no param-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('o que já foi gerado no Estúdio do notebook'), and enumerates content types such as áudios, vídeos, slides and relatórios. It is clearly distinguishable from generation siblings like notebook_gerar_audio, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as notebook_estudio_status, notebook_estudio_baixar, notebook_estudio_excluir, or notebook_uso. Usage is only implied by the listing purpose.

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