sei_listar_assinantes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: listing signatories for the current unit, a dependency on sei_assinar_documento, version constraints, and a troubleshooting tip for unexpected errors. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences, all necessary: main purpose, usage context, version info, and error recovery. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no redundant text.

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 tool is simple (no parameters, with output schema and annotations), the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, related tool, version requirements, and error handling. The output schema documents return values, so no further detail is needed.

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?

There are no parameters (input schema is empty), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information and correctly implies no parameters are required. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 clearly states 'Lista signatários (cargos/funções) disponíveis na unidade atual' specifying the verb (lista) and resource (signatários). It further clarifies that these are roles used in sei_assinar_documento, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like sei_listar_unidades or sei_listar_processos.

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 indicates when to use the tool: before calling sei_assinar_documento to obtain available signatory roles. It provides version availability and error recovery steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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