obter_contexto_projeto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the detection mechanism, indicates it is a discovery/identification operation, and describes the stateful disabled condition. A more explicit statement that the operation does not mutate anything and does not require special authentication would make it fully transparent.

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 front-loads the main purpose. Every phrase adds meaningful detail: the method, the current directory basis, and the disabled condition. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the input context, the source of project detection, and the potential disabled state. It could briefly state the shape of the returned value or the explicit outcome enum, but the absence is a minor gap.

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 input schema fully describes 'diretorio_path' with its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, either in the rest of the schema or in the description, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: it identifies the active project based on the current working directory. It also conveys the prediction behavior and makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like 'listar_demandas_ativas' or 'criar_demanda', since this one is about context/discovery, not listing or mutation.

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 gives clear context of when to use this tool: when the active project context is needed, determined from the current directory. It also mentions the disabling condition for external or unidentified projects, which functions as a when-not signal. It does not explicitly point to a direct sibling alternative, preventing a perfect score.

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