Informações do RPO

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true. Description adds 'Auditoria pré/pós-deploy' indicating historical tracking, and specifies it operates on the connected environment. No contradictory behaviors.

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 short, clear sentences directly describing the tool's output. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with key 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?

For a read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. Could mention output format or typical use case but not required for completeness.

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 single parameter 'ultimosPatches' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'How many patches from history to return', so baseline score 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 that the tool provides RPO version, generation date, and patch history. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tds_rpo_objects and tds_patch_info by focusing on overall RPO info and audit trail.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., tds_patch_info for specific patches, tds_rpo_objects for objects), a recommendation would help the agent.

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