rd

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds mode-specific return content—summary fields/short description, full description/attachments/relations, comments/changes, and children—which is meaningful behavioral context given there is no output schema. It still omits error behavior and pagination details beyond the n parameter.

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 verb and resource come first, followed by a compact enumeration of modes and their contents.

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 low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers the key mode behavior even without an output schema. Minor gaps remain around output structure and id/pagination defaults, but those are largely handled in the schema.

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. The description goes beyond the enum labels by defining what each mode returns, especially 'completo' (full description, attachments, relations) and 'atividade' (comments and changes), which materially clarifies the most important parameter.

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 ('Lê') and resource ('work package') and breaks the tool into four concrete modes with what each returns. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly named siblings (ls, find, etc.), so it falls short of 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 is implied by 'Lê um work package' and the mode descriptions help choose among resumo/completo/atividade/filhos. There is no explicit guidance on when to use rd instead of sibling tools such as ls or find, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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