Pré-visualizar uma ação de arquivos

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces those. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool builds a user-facing explanation, the field requer_confirmacao signals when to ask the user, and the agent must never reveal technical tool names.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second gives usage and a worked example, the third defines the confirmation rule. Nothing is redundant or filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers when to use the tool, what it returns conceptually (validation and plain-Portuguese explanation), and highlights the key output field requer_confirmacao. It could have detailed the full return shape, but the essential guidance is present.

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 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond an illustrative example; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('valida e explica'), a specific resource ('ação de arquivos'), and explicitly declares the read-only scope ('SEM alterar nada no disco'). It names the sibling execution tools it precedes, so an agent can distinguish it from them.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before mover_item, copiar_item, renomear_item, criar_pasta, organizar_arquivos, or enviar_para_lixeira, and explains when to require confirmation (conflitos de nome e envio para a Lixeira). It also provides a concrete example of the output and instructs how to communicate with the user.

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