Inspecionar conteúdo de patch

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that the patch is not applied. It adds behavioral detail that the 'date' field uses the same mtime semantics as tds_rpo_objects, which is useful context beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary action and content, the second provides usage context and a clarification about date semantics. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 inspection tool with one parameter, no output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description fully covers what the tool lists, the use case (auditing), and clarifies a specific data field. No gaps remain.

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 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'arquivoPatch'. The description does not add further parameter semantics, but the schema already fully documents it, meeting the baseline.

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 verb 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'conteúdo de um arquivo de patch'. It specifies the content types (fontes, datas, tamanhos) and emphasizes it does not apply the patch, distinguishing it from siblings like tds_patch_apply and tds_patch_validate.

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 phrase 'Auditoria de patch recebido de terceiros' indicates the tool's purpose for auditing third-party patches. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the context implies this is for inspection, contrasting with application or validation.

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