Conferir site pronto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent, adding that it only reads a pre-authorized folder and never sends files or executes commands. The phrase "previamente autorizada" usefully implies an authorization prerequisite, though rate limits/return behavior are unstated.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler: the positive scope comes first, followed by the negative boundary. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what is examined and what is not performed. It stops short of describing the shape of the inspection result, which an agent might want, but the safety profile is fully covered by annotations.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the input is a pre-authorized static folder rather than anything the agent supplies at call time, which is the only semantically relevant point.

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 specific verb (verifies/inspects) and resource (the previously authorized static folder), enumerating what is checked: files, size, recognized credentials. It implicitly separates itself from send_draft by declaring it neither sends files nor runs commands, though it does not name that sibling directly.

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 exclusion clause ("Não envia arquivos nem executa comandos") hints at the boundary with send_draft, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus connection_info or send_draft. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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