fluig_request_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that results already contain formRecordId and formId without needing expand — real behavioral value — but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or the read-only/non-mutating nature of the call beyond the verb "Lista".

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and filters, followed by the distinguishing output value and the parameter-format warning. No sentence is redundant.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description fills the key gap by naming the returned identifiers. It is nearly complete for a read/list tool, with the main shortfall being the unbacked filter claims and no mention of paging defaults (which the schema does cover).

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?

The processId note (repeated array here vs CSV in fluig_task_list) adds genuine meaning beyond the schema, and "SEM precisar de expand" clarifies that expand can be omitted. However, the description advertises status, requisitante and date-range filtering that no parameter in the schema exposes, which is misleading for a reader trying to map filters to arguments.

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+resource ("Lista SOLICITAÇÕES") and enumerates the filter dimensions, then adds a distinguishing role: it is the process-to-form bridge that yields formRecordId/cardId and formId without expand. It also contrasts itself with the sibling fluig_task_list on the processId format, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 use this when it needs formRecordId/formId without an expand round-trip, and warns about the parameter-format difference from fluig_task_list. It does not say when to prefer fluig_card_list or fluig_request_get instead, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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