ver_ace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned content (slots with color/type/name and the source template project), which signals a pure inspection operation. It says nothing about whether the data reflects the current state of the ACE file, whether it requires an already-loaded project, or cost/limit behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the subject (ACE slots) comes before the secondary detail (originating project). The trailing clause 'de qual projeto o molde foi tirado' is slightly indirect but still earns its place by naming a second output field.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential contract: it is an inspection call and it returns slot metadata plus template provenance. Only the return structure (a list? grouped by slot index?) and any preconditions remain unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by describing only what is read.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Mostra os slots do ACE') and enumerates exactly what is exposed: color, type and name per spool, plus the origin project of the template. An agent can distinguish it from the mutating siblings (definir_molde_ace, alterar_slot_ace) by the inspection verb, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Read-only intent is implied by 'Mostra', which contrasts with the set/change siblings, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alterar_slot_ace or definir_molde_ace for modification. Usage has to be inferred from the verb alone.

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