fluig_card_children_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: server ordering is non-deterministic and this tool pre-sorts by rowId, and each row carries rowId/tableId. It does not state read-only safety, permission requirements, or what happens when a card has no child rows.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: what it returns, why it beats the sibling, and the ordering guarantee. The use-case list ('rateio, itens de nota, lista de e-mails') is compact and genuinely helps matching, with no filler.

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?

All three required params are covered by the schema and the description supplies the return-side semantics (rowId/tableId, sorted output) that the absent output schema would otherwise leave blank. What is still missing is the overall shape of the returned rows and behavior on empty results.

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% and the env enum is thoroughly documented in the schema itself (explicit no-default rationale for teste vs prod). The description adds nothing about the three parameters (documentId, cardId, env) — the rowId/tableId it mentions are return fields, not inputs — so this lands at the baseline.

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 ('lê as LINHAS PAI-FILHO (tabelas do formulário) de um card') and explicitly distinguishes itself from fluig_process_card_get by naming the flattened 'campo___N' output that sibling produces. An agent can tell immediately which of the two card-reading tools it needs.

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?

Gives the selection condition ('É o caminho para conferir rateio, itens de nota, lista de e-mails') and names the alternative tool with the reason it will not work for this case. The only mild gap is no explicit 'do not use when' case, but the contrast with the sibling effectively covers it.

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