fluig_rm_dataserver_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical non-obvious trait: despite being a read of a schema, it "grava um dataset para executar", plus the prod-only confirm requirement. It does not say whether the temporary dataset persists or is cleaned up, nor whether there are permission constraints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the read-before-write imperative. The trailing warning is well placed; the confirm=true clause duplicates the schema slightly but earns its place as a hazard callout.

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, so the description should say something about what the schema result looks like (field list, types, nested structure) to let the agent plan the subsequent write. It covers when and the side effect but leaves the return shape entirely unexplained.

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%, so parameter meaning is already fully documented. The description only restates the prod/confirm rule, which the schema already states, adding no format hints for dataServerName or contexto beyond what is there.

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 resource (o contrato/schema de um DataServer do RM) and the exact call path (ServiceManager → wsDataServer.getSchema), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like fluig_dataset_get or fluig_rm_db_query. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though the verb is implied rather than stated up front.

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?

"leia ANTES de tentar gravar no ERP" gives an explicit when-to-use trigger that ties it to the write path (fluig_rm_save_record). It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead or stating when this tool is unnecessary (e.g. for non-RM datasets).

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