relatorio

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's contribution is that this is a composite, high-level read meant to precede broad questions, which is useful workflow context but not deep behavioral detail. Enumerating the report's contents overlaps with the existing output schema, limiting added value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope and ending with the usage trigger. The middle enumeration is somewhat list-like but each item conveys real content; nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety/idempotency profile, the description need not explain return values. It supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: that this is the broad-context entry point to consult before wide questions. Adequate for a zero-parameter, read-only report tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 names the resource ('Visão de arquitetura do projeto') and enumerates what it surfaces — god nodes, subsistemas, conexões surpreendentes, decisões ligadas ao código — so the agent knows this is a synthesized architecture overview rather than a raw lookup. It is clearly distinct from lookup-style siblings like ler, buscar, or consultar_grafo, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

'Leia antes de perguntas amplas' gives an explicit trigger condition for when to reach for this tool. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to a lower-level alternative for narrow queries, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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