listar_datasets_disponiveis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's scope (all registered, including inactive datasets), that sizes are approximate, and that it reports cache download status. The dependency on MCP_BRASIL_DATASETS is explained. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation via 'lista', though it does not explicitly state this.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by relevant context about the cache dependency, and ends with a structured return specification. Each sentence adds necessary information without fluff, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, behavior (active/inactive, approximate size, cache state), and the environment variable dependency. It also specifies the return format in plain text, even though an output schema exists. Slightly more detail on prerequisites or explicit read-only nature would improve completeness, but it is adequate for a no-parameter listing tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description adds meaning by explaining that no input is needed and that the tool simply lists datasets and their cache state. Since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and the description adequately communicates the lack of inputs.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb and resource: 'Lista os datasets locais (ADR-004) disponíveis e seu estado de cache.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings like 'listar_features' by focusing on datasets and explicitly reporting all registered datasets (active and inactive).

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?

The description implies usage for checking dataset availability and cache status, noting that features depend on local cache. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as 'listar_features', nor does it mention when not to use it.

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