descrever_telaDescribes an Ahreas ERP screen by path, showing its required fields and available actions. Use it to inspect screen details before running read or write operations.
Detalha uma tela: os campos que ela pede e as ações (botões) disponíveis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caminho | Yes | Caminho da tela, como em listar_telas. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses no safety profile (read-only? destructive?), permission needs, or idempotency. The one behavioral detail it does offer – what the response contains – is redundant with the existing output schema.
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. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the absence of usage and behavioral context.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the one param is covered. However, for a tool sitting among siblings like listar_telas and executar_acao_tela, the missing guidance on when to choose this one leaves a real gap.
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 single parameter 'caminho' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting for a one-parameter tool.
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+resource ('Detalha uma tela') and even names what the output contains (the fields it asks for and the available actions/buttons), which cleanly distinguishes it from listar_telas. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like executar_acao_tela, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing. An agent must infer that this is the read/inspection step preceding executar_acao_tela or importar_arquivo_em_tela. Nothing tells it which sibling to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.