get_turmas

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 does add real behavioral context by revealing that results are automatically scoped to the current semester (not historical terms), which the agent could not otherwise know. It says nothing about whether an empty list means no enrollment, whether it is read-only, or about ordering/auth, so it is 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope stated before the parenthetical field list. The parenthetical fields are partly redundant with the existing output schema, which is the only minor waste.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema already describing the return shape, the description supplies everything needed to select and call it: the resource, the current-semester scope, and the payload fields. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke 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?

The schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is called with no arguments and implicitly acts on the authenticated student.

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?

States a specific resource ('Turmas em que o aluno está matriculado') and a precise scope ('no semestre atual'), plus the fields returned (componente, local, horário). An agent can tell it is the enrolled-classes listing rather than grades or calendar. It does not name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the tool for 'which classes am I taking this semester'. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives like get_agenda or get_calendario_academico, and no guidance on how it complements get_frequencia or get_notas.

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