listar_agregados

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only, listing operation with optional filters, but it does not mention any limits, pagination, sorting, or default behavior. A 3 is appropriate as the basic nature is clear but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that first state the core function and then provide a critical use-case hint. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no superfluous 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 that this is a straightforward list tool with an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description adequately covers the essential context. It explains the primary use case and the tool's role in a larger workflow. A small deduction is made because it doesn't hint at the type of data returned (e.g., containing IDs and names), but this is minor given the output 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its three optional parameters. The tool description only briefly summarizes the parameters as optional filters without adding new semantic information. Since the schema already carries the details, a baseline of 3 is correct.

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 explicitly states that the tool lists available aggregates (tables) in SIDRA, and it explains that its primary use is to discover the ID before calling related tools like 'obter_metadados_agregado' or 'consultar_dados_agregado'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on specific aggregates or retrieve other data.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: before calling metadata or data retrieval tools for aggregates. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or discuss alternative tools for other purposes, but the context from sibling tool names helps fill that gap.

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