fluig_card_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does add non-obvious behavior: it declares the operation is a read, warns that this route's pageSize default is 100 rather than the BPM route's 1000, and pins documentId to the form. It still omits return shape, pagination metadata, and any auth/permission expectations, keeping it below 5.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then the pageSize trap, then the identifier clarification. Nothing is padded and the most costly mistake (wrong default page size / wrong id) is surfaced early.

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 5-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the two main gotchas but leaves the 'fields' projection parameter and result/pagination behavior entirely unaddressed, so an agent still has gaps before calling it correctly.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says (pageSize default 100, documentId = form id); it adds only the comparative context about the BPM route and says nothing about the undocumented 'fields' array or 'page' semantics.

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 concrete verb and resource: reads card records from a form without going through BPM or SQL, and clarifies that documentId is the FORM id rather than a card id — a real disambiguation against siblings like fluig_process_card_get and fluig_card_save. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it stops 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?

The phrase 'sem passar por BPM e sem SQL' implies the usage context (direct form-data reads instead of process/SQL routes), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over fluig_process_card_get, fluig_form_full, or fluig_db_query, and no exclusion conditions.

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