listar_demandas_ativas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'lista' (lists) but does not explicitly state whether it's read-only, whether it filters by default (only open/in-progress) or returns all statuses when no filter is applied, or any pagination/sorting behavior. The mismatch between the description's 'abertas ou em andamento' and the schema's full status enum adds ambiguity.

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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and a contextual use case without any filler. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns (e.g., list of demand objects, key fields) and any default behavior. The description mentions a use case but does not explain the response format, filtering defaults, or relationship to subtask linking. It is under-specified for a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output.

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% with all three parameters (projeto_id, status, responsavel_id) having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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?

The description clearly states it lists demands (verb+resource) for a project. It distinguishes itself from siblings like listar_projetos and obter_detalhes_demanda by focusing on the collection of demands. However, the phrase 'abertas ou em andamento' is slightly misleading since the schema's status enum includes all statuses (e.g., concluida, cancelada), so the description under-specifies the actual scope.

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 description mentions a use case (análise de contexto e vínculo de subtarefas), which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with alternative tools like obter_detalhes_demanda or obter_contexto_projeto. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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