processar_lote_local

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does reveal the key interactive trait: it opens native OS folder selectors requiring user action, and it explicitly states no chat-based path arguments are accepted. However, it doesn't address what happens after the user cancels, whether processing is synchronous or asynchronous in light of job-based siblings like 'consultar_job', or what side effects occur, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 sentence with the primary action front-loaded ('Abre seletores nativos de pastas') and a clarifying constraint in the second clause. Both clauses carry distinct information and there are zero redundant words.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient — it covers the interaction mechanism (native pickers), the processing mode (batch), and a key constraint (no chat paths). It could add a clause about return semantics or post-selection behavior, which would be especially useful given the job-oriented sibling tools, but the core context is adequately conveyed.

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?

With zero parameters, the rubric sets a baseline of 4, and the description adds value by explaining WHY no parameters exist — interaction happens via a native folder picker rather than schematized arguments ('sem receber caminhos no chat'). This gives semantic meaning to the empty schema that the schema itself cannot convey.

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 provides a specific verb+resource: 'abre seletores nativos de pastas' (opens native folder pickers) and 'processa em lote' (processes in batch), with the clause 'sem receber caminhos no chat' helping distinguish this from path-based workflows. However, the exact nature of the batch processing itself is vague — what happens with the selected folders is not stated — so it doesn't fully reach the specificity required for 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?

Usage context is implied through the phrase 'sem receber caminhos no chat', which tells an agent this tool is for interactive, UI-driven selection rather than chat-supplied paths. However, no sibling tool is named, no explicit exclusion conditions are given, and no scenario-based guidance is provided on when to prefer this over tools like 'selecionar_e_desidentificar' or 'obter_texto_desidentificado'. Guidance is present but only implied.

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