Estrutura curricular do curso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral-transparency burden. It exposes the output organization (by semester), component categories, and the fields needed for the next call. It does not mention prerequisites such as being logged in, nor any side effects or failure behavior, but 'Lista' reasonably implies a read operation.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second gives the actionable next step. There is no filler, and the key differentiating information is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this is a simple read-style tool and the description is nearly complete. It names the important returned fields, but it leaves minor context implicit, such as authentication dependency and the full return format.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema documents this completely, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the mention of response fields like 'componentes[].id' relates to output chaining, not to input parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Lista') and a specific resource ('componentes curriculares do curso do aluno'), and adds meaningful qualifiers: the component types and the semester organization. This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as sigaa_get_notas or sigaa_get_turma.

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?

It communicates the intended flow: fetch the curriculum structure first, then use returned fields to call sigaa_get_componente. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative, but the chaining instruction is a clear, actionable usage context.

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