ls

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is disclosing the return format (compact pipe-delimited rows), which matters because there is no output schema. It still omits pagination/truncation behavior and the consequence of the default project scope.

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; the purpose leads and the output contract follows. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with ten optional parameters, filtering enums and pagination, plus no output schema, the description is thin: it covers 'what' and the row format but not routing against siblings or pagination semantics. The rich schema compensates partially, making this adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so all ten parameters including the filtro and ordem enums are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Lista work packages") and adds the exact output shape, one line per WP with fields id|tipo|status|prio|resp|fim|%|assunto. It never names the obvious alternative (the sibling "find"), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would pick ls over find.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and points to no alternative tool. The only usage signal comes from the schema's filtro default ("abertos"), not from the description text.

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