fluig_process_events_xml

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load: it does disclose that this is a read of the definition XML and that it is the authoritative source, which is useful. However, it omits the truncation behavior (maxChars default, destino writes the full content while the inline response is only a summary) — that information lives only in the schema — and says nothing about permissions or failure modes.

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?

Two tight sentences, the read purpose front-loaded and the 'no widget / no table' differentiator immediately after. Nothing is padded and no sentence is wasted.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to select and call it correctly; the response-shape caveats are handled by the schema. A brief note on the summary-vs-full-file behavior would have made it fully self-sufficient.

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 schema explains env, destino, version, maxChars and processId thoroughly, including the file-path sandbox and the explicit env choice. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 ('Lê') and a specific resource ('eventos de PROCESSO') plus the exact source ('direto do XML da definição'), and gives concrete event examples (beforeStateEntry, afterTaskCreate, afterProcessFinish). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling event tools by declaring it bypasses FluiggersWidget and the event_proces table.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to prefer this over the widget/table route ('NÃO precisa do FluiggersWidget nem de ler a tabela event_proces — é a fonte de verdade oficial'), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming which sibling (e.g. fluig_process_event_get) to use for the write/other-read case, so the exclusion is one-sided.

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