Listar QA de um ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'lista' implies a read-only operation without side effects, and the description does not contradict that. However, it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe any limitations (e.g., pagination, sorting, or behavior when ticket_id is not found). For a simple list tool, this is minimally transparent but leaves behavioral details 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?

The description is a compact two-clause sentence: the main purpose is front-loaded ('QA: lista runs, bugs e evidências'), and the filter detail follows. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. This is exemplary conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

Given the simplicity—one optional parameter, no output schema—the description covers the essential actions and the filter. It does not specify the return structure (e.g., that it returns a list of objects with fields), but for a list tool this is reasonably implicit. It could add a note on the output format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly for typical use cases.

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 0% (no descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does: 'Filtra por ticket_id se informado' explicitly explains that the parameter filters results and that it is optional. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition of a string field. It could be more detailed (e.g., format or example), but it adequately clarifies the parameter's role.

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 states the specific verb 'lista' (lists) and the resource: runs, bugs, e evidências (runs, bugs, and evidence). It clearly distinguishes from the recording tools (qa_record_run, qa_record_bug, qa_attach_evidence) by being a read/list operation. The optional filtering by ticket_id is also mentioned, making the purpose 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: to list QA items. The phrase 'Filtra por ticket_id se informado' provides clear context for the optional filter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use qa_record_run to add a run') or state exclusions, so it's clear but not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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