Listar Telas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the scope (383 screens), its role as step 1 of a multi-step workflow, and the hand-off to descrever_tela. It does not discuss permissions or result-size behavior, but the presence of an output schema covers return format.

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?

Front-loads the key framing ('Passo 1 para OPERAR...') and packs when-to-use, examples, fallback, and next step into three dense but readable sentences. Slightly example-heavy, but no sentence is 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 listing tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description supplies the missing workflow context: what it enumerates, when it applies, and where to go next. Return values are rightly left to the output schema; only edge details (paging via limite) go unmentioned.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds search strategy beyond the schema's 'texto no nome da tela' — steering the agent to 'busque pela intenção' with examples ('consumo', 'boleto', 'emissão'). This makes the busca parameter's intended use clearer than the schema alone.

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 frames this as 'Passo 1 para OPERAR o Ahreas' and states it holds '383 telas da instalação', making clear it lists screens. It clearly distinguishes itself from listar_metodos (métodos vs telas). The listing verb is somewhat implicit — an agent infers it returns a set of screens — but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('quando a pessoa quer FAZER algo que se faz na tela'), with concrete examples (importar leitura, emitir boleto, gerar remessa), and names the fallback alternative ('quando listar_metodos não achou um método'). It even prescribes the next step (chame descrever_tela), leaving little to inference.

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