recentes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context: no ordering guarantee, no default behavior when 'pasta' is null, and no note on what the limit does.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its filter. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it is arguably too terse for the information an agent needs.

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 described, and the tool is simple (two optional params, read-only). Still, with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves the filtering and limit semantics entirely undocumented.

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 0% and the description never mentions 'pasta' or 'limite'. The parameter names are self-describing in Portuguese, but the description does nothing to explain that 'pasta' scopes results to a folder or that 'limite' defaults to 15, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource and filter ('Arquivos modificados mais recentemente') and the parenthetical fixes intent ('o que o usuário anda trabalhando'). It conveys what the tool returns, though it uses no explicit verb and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like 'arquivos', 'buscar', or 'filtrar'.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to any alternative tool. The parenthetical hint about 'what the user has been working on' gestures at a use case but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over 'buscar' or 'filtrar'.

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