bncc_listar

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination, return format, or error behavior. Only the listing action is implied, leaving significant gaps.

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 relatively concise with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence, followed by structured parameter explanations. Each sentence contributes value, though the parameter block could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It explains inputs but does not describe return format, pagination behavior, ordering, or error handling. For a listing tool, this is insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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%, but the description adds clear semantics for all parameters: 'componente' is required with example, 'ano' can be empty for all years, 'etapa' for disambiguation, and 'limite' max results with default. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool lists skills of a component+year cut, including thematic unit and knowledge object. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools like bncc_buscar (search) or bncc_estatisticas (statistics).

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 provides parameter examples but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives or exclusionary criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the definition alone.

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