Listar tools da cidade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool connects to MCP servers, performs a live check ('agora'), and returns currently exposed tools. It does not cover failure modes, but for a read-only listing operation this is a meaningful and sufficient disclosure.

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 sentences with no filler: the first explains what the tool does, and the second gives a concrete use case. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context: the action, result, and a real-world scenario. It could mention behavior on unreachable servers, but that is a minor gap for this simple live-listing tool.

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 the only parameter (entityId), including the 'omit to query all active' guidance. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Conecta nos servidores MCP das entidades') and a clear result ('devolve as tools que elas realmente expõem agora'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_entities and call_entity_tool by focusing on live tool introspection.

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 explicitly gives a use case: 'Útil para conferir se o registro está de acordo com a realidade', which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple listing operation.

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