get_avaliacoes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose scope ('em cada turma virtual', i.e. results are organized per virtual class) and that the query is a passive lookup of scheduled dates, but it says nothing about whether past assessments are included, ordering, or completeness. For a simple read this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the payload, followed by a compact Args block covering the single parameter. Nothing is redundant and the parameter note is placed where a reader expects it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with one optional parameter the surface is small. Purpose and the only parameter's matching semantics are both covered. The minor gap is how results relate to turmas and whether past/future filtering is possible.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains that disciplina matches a partial name, is accent- and case-insensitive, and that omitting it returns all. This is real meaning the schema does not carry. It stops short of stating the match field scope (only discipline name vs. code) or expected format.

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 resource and content: dates and times of assessments (exams) scheduled by the teacher in each virtual class. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_tarefas or get_calendario_academico, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 only usage guidance is the parameter default ('Se omitido, todas'). There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over get_tarefas, get_calendario_academico, or get_notas, and no preconditions or exclusions. An agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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