getYearBudgets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic listing action and does not describe what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, or any side effects or limitations. For a read operation, the behavior is simple, but the description is still too sparse to be transparent.

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 a single concise phrase 'Listar metas do ano' with no unnecessary words or fluff. It effectively communicates the core purpose in a compact form, though its brevity borders on under-specification. It earns its place but leaves much to be desired in terms of detail.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. The lack of usage guidance, behavioral transparency, and explicit parameter semantics makes it insufficient, especially given the presence of similar sibling tools. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still leaves critical usage questions unanswered.

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 schema has one required parameter 'year' with 0% description coverage in the input schema. The description's phrase 'do ano' (of the year) does provide some semantic context that the parameter refers to the year for which budgets are listed. However, it does not fully compensate for the lack of explicit parameter documentation, such as format, range, or the fact that it is required. The schema provides type and example, but the description adds only minimal meaning.

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 'Listar metas do ano' clearly states the action (listar = list) and the resource (metas do ano = year budgets/goals). It is not a tautology and gives a basic idea of the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like getBudgets or getMonthBudgets, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios. Given that there are closely related sibling tools (getBudgets, getMonthBudgets), the absence of usage guidance is a clear gap.

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