Listar Rotinas

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context that only permitted routines are returned and that the source is the ERP's own catalog, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it reflects the currently authenticated user, or what happens when the person has no liberated routines.

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 one compact sentence with no filler and puts the central scoping condition ('tem liberadas') right after the noun. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit verb like 'Lista/Devolve', but it is still appropriately concise.

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?

The output schema covers return shape and the input schema covers parameters, so the remaining burden is scope and context, which the description partially addresses with the permission and ERP-catalog information. However, it does not clarify how this listing relates to listar_operacoes_winthor or when an agent should prefer one sibling over the other.

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 description coverage is 100% for all four optional parameters, so the schema already explains busca, limite, modulo, and apenas_executaveis. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline score.

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 identifies the resource ('rotinas') and the key scope ('que esta pessoa tem liberadas, do catálogo do próprio ERP'), so an agent understands it lists a user's authorized routines from the ERP catalog. The title supplies the missing verb, but the description never refers to sibling tools and relies on the 'rotinas' vs 'operações' wording to differentiate.

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 about when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools. It does not name alternatives such as listar_operacoes_winthor or descrever_rotina, nor does it state exclusions such as 'when you need a single routine's details'.

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