get_tarefas

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it implies a read-only fetch via 'get' and lists the returned attributes, which is useful. However, it says nothing about scope (presumably the student's enrolled classes), permissions, or result ordering/pagination. With an output schema present, the silence on return shape is acceptable, but the scoping behavior remains unstated.

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 resource and the fields it returns, then a compact Args block for the one parameter. Both sentences earn their place with no filler. The mixed prose/docstring style is slightly uneven but does not impede parsing.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema covering return values, the description covers the resource, the fields, and the filter semantics. The main omission is scope (which student/class the assignments belong to) and any guidance versus the similar get_avaliacoes tool, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 must define the single parameter, and it does: 'disciplina' is a partial name match, accent- and case-insensitive, defaulting to all disciplines when omitted. That is precisely the semantic detail the bare schema lacks. It does not specify matching behavior for ambiguous or multiple matches, which keeps it below a 5.

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 names the resource (tarefas da turma virtual) and enumerates exactly what each record contains: título, período de entrega, vale nota, envio e enunciado. That lets an agent recognize this as the assignment-listing tool rather than the grade or assessment tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get_avaliacoes, which is the closest sibling conceptually.

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 that an omitted 'disciplina' returns all assignments, which is implied scope rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement about when to prefer this over get_avaliacoes, get_notas, or get_agenda, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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