Listar pastas permitidas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by specifying how to present the list (friendly names in `resumo`, full paths only when requested) and instructing a follow-up invitation to work in another folder with authorization.

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 a bit longer than minimal but every sentence adds value: scope, trigger, presentation, and follow-up. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains readable.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the permission scope, when to call it, how to format the result, and the ending behavior. An agent can invoke and present results correctly from this text alone.

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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The description instead clarifies the output presentation, which is the relevant semantic gap.

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 opens with 'Ação somente leitura: mostra quais pastas você pode acessar agora', a specific verb and resource plus an access-scope qualifier. This makes it accurately distinguishable from siblings like listar_arquivos (files) and solicitar_acesso_pasta (requesting access).

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use quando o usuário perguntar o que você consegue acessar.' It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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