listar_paginas

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the sort order ('da alteração mais recente para a mais antiga') and what com_nivel returns (recursion level, subpage = 1, 2), but is silent on result limits, pagination, permissions, or what fields each page carries.

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 tightly-packed sentences: the resource and ordering come first, then the optional parameter's effect. No filler or repetition of the name.

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 two-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input semantics and ordering but omits return shape, volume/pagination behavior, and error conditions, leaving meaningful gaps an agent would want filled.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it largely does. It explains the accepted format for 'secao' (id or 'Bloco/Grupo/Seção' path) and the exact effect and value semantics of 'com_nivel', which the bare boolean schema does not.

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+resource ('Páginas de uma seção') and adds scope details (id or path format, sort order). An agent can tell it lists pages rather than blocks or sections. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling buscar_paginas, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never says when to choose this tool over buscar_paginas, listar_blocos or listar_secoes, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g. that the section must exist). Usage is only implied by the tool's name and structure.

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