ler_varios

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is known. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: every note is truncated at max_caracteres_cada, which materially affects what the caller receives. It does not say how missing or unfound notes are handled.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core behavior leads, the accepted identifier forms are parenthetical, and the usage rationale closes. Nothing is restated from structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still supplies the key caller-facing caveat (per-note truncation) plus accepted input forms. It is complete enough to invoke correctly; only error/missing-note behavior is unaddressed.

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 0% and the schema only says 'array of strings', so the description carries the load. It clarifies that `notas` accepts #ids from `buscar`, paths, or titles, and that `max_caracteres_cada` is a per-note truncation limit — real meaning absent from the schema.

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 (lê) and resource (várias notas/arquivos) with the distinguishing detail of batching 'numa chamada só'. This implicitly differentiates from the singular sibling `ler`, though it does not name that sibling explicitly. An agent can tell it is the multi-item read.

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?

'Bom para comparar 2–6 resultados sem ida e volta' gives an explicit use case and even a size sweet-spot for when to reach for this tool over repeated single reads. It stops short of naming `ler` as the alternative or stating exclusions.

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