listar_3mf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds two genuine behavioral facts beyond the schema—that size and date are reported and that results are sorted newest-to-oldest—but says nothing about recursion depth, behavior on a missing/empty folder, or permissions.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and scoped with folder plus sort order. Everything stated earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully previews size/date/order. However, for a path-taking tool with an entirely undocumented parameter, the definition leaves real gaps about path semantics and edge-case behavior.

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 0%, so the single required parameter 'pasta' is completely undocumented. The description only restates the word 'pasta' and does not clarify whether it is an absolute path, a name relative to some root, or what format is expected.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Lista os arquivos .3mf de uma pasta') and adds content and ordering. It is distinguishable from siblings like inspecionar_3mf, verificar_3mf and converter_3mf, though it never names them explicitly as alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: list the contents of a folder. There is no statement of when to prefer this over inspecionar_3mf or verificar_3mf, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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