guard_list_purposes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the auth prerequisite (guard_login) and enumerates the three possible states each returned purpose can be in, which shapes how the agent interprets results.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then usage, then prerequisite. Tight and free of filler; the parenthetical gloss on "finalidades" is the only near-redundant element but aids comprehension.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (purposes with their states), when to call it, and the auth requirement. Pagination and filter behavior are left to the schema, which is acceptable since no output schema exists but the state model is the key missing piece and it is explained.

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 60% and the status enum is already documented in the schema, so the description's listing of published/draft/agent-proposal states largely mirrors structured data. The filters (search, legal_basis, page, per_page) get no added meaning in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ("Lista") and resource ("finalidades de tratamento de dados da conta do HOC Guard"), and even defines the concept parenthetically ("por que a empresa usa cada dado pessoal"). Clearly distinguishable from siblings guard_get_purpose (singular), guard_create_purpose, and guard_update_purpose.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: "Use antes de criar uma finalidade, para não duplicar." It also names the prerequisite ("Exige guard_login"). The alternative (guard_create_purpose) is implied by the dedup rationale, giving an agent a clear routing rule.

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