fluig_process_possible_assignees

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the error-driven entry point (HTTP 412) and that results are filterable/paginated, which is useful, but it never states that this is a read-only lookup, what an assignee record contains, or what an empty result means.

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 sentences total, with the capability stated first and the operational trigger second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description ideally should describe the shape of returned assignees and any access prerequisites. It covers invocation well for a 5-parameter tool but leaves the consumption side unexplained, making it adequate rather than complete.

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 every parameter is already documented, including a detailed env explanation. The description only echoes 'filtro por nome e paginação' and leaves targetState's role in defining 'next activity' unexpanded, so it adds little beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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: listing who CAN receive the next activity, with name filtering and pagination. The 'próxima atividade' scope is specific enough to separate it from generic user-listing siblings, but it never names those siblings (fluig_process_available_users, fluig_process_available) to draw the line explicitly.

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 a precise trigger condition — call this when a move is rejected with HTTP 412 (invalid recipient), since this is where valid assignees are discovered. That is clear usage context, but it offers no when-not guidance and does not name the alternative tools an agent might otherwise reach for.

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