Inspecionar conteúdo de patch

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description reinforces 'sem aplicá-lo' (without applying). Additionally, it explains the semantics of the 'date' field, referencing tds_rpo_objects, adding useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 front-load the core purpose and add a relevant usage context and field semantics note. No redundant 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 the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does (lists sources, dates, sizes) and provides enough context (audit use case, date field meaning) for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%; the parameter description in the schema already documents 'Caminho local do .ptm/.upd/.pak'. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists contents (sources, dates, sizes) of a patch file without applying it, with a specific use case for auditing third-party patches. It distinguishes from siblings like tds_patch_apply.

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 specifies the tool is for auditing patches received from third parties, implying inspection rather than application or validation. While it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use, the context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation.

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