listar_projetos

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it is sparse. It claims to list 'all projects' while the schema has a status filter with a default of 'ativo', which contradicts the 'todos' wording—potentially misleading an agent about the default scope. It also fails to mention any side effects, permissions, pagination, or response format, which are critical for a tool without annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words or filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there is no bloat.

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 simple listing tool with an optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally functional but leaves gaps. The mismatch between 'todos' and the default 'ativo' filter is a notable incompleteness, and there is no guidance on expected output or pagination. While the simplicity reduces the burden, the description could benefit from clarifying the default behavior and any restrictions.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter (status) with 100% coverage, giving the agent sufficient detail on filtering. The description adds no further semantic value, but since the schema covers it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, it does not clarify the interaction between 'todos' and the default filter value.

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 the action (listing projects) and the resource (projects in the Task Management system). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'listar_demandas_ativas' or 'listar_sprints', though the resource type is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions (e.g., when to use 'obter_contexto_projeto' instead). No comparison with sibling tools is made, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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