snapshot_support_register

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/no-destruction profile, and the description reinforces it ("sem alterar entidades ou salvar arquivos"). It goes beyond annotations by disclosing a hard size cap ("recusa exceder o limite") and the return location (data.snapshot), which are useful behavioral facts not present in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then cleanly segmented into QUANDO USAR, Parâmetros, Exemplo, and Retorna blocks. Some content is mildly redundant across sections, but each block earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 5-param, read-only snapshot tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies the triggering context, the required filter, parameter roles, an example, and the downstream consumers. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without opening the schema.

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 0%, so the description carries the param burden and largely succeeds: it names block_filter, layer_filter and the key_tag/type_tag/line_tag family, explains the tag params as configurable attribute names, and provides a concrete call example. Minor gap: it asserts an "explicit filter" requirement while the schema marks no parameters required (all defaults null), leaving a slight ambiguity.

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 (capture a complete/limited register of supports) and adds scope qualifiers (no entity mutation, no file saving). It also names the downstream consumers audit_support_register and compare_support_register, so an agent can tell it apart from those siblings immediately.

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?

"QUANDO USAR: antes de revisar atributos ou comparar revisões" gives a clear triggering context and pairs it with a prerequisite (explicit block/layer filter). It points to the alternative tools it feeds but does not spell out when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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