list_outputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it does disclose meaningful scope: read of the output folder, and which formats are included. It omits ordering guarantees (is "most recent" ascending or descending?), whether results are truncated by the limit, and whether it errors when the folder is absent.

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?

One tight sentence with the key scoping information front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is bloated; it is simply short on detail.

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 explained. However, for a listing tool with an undocumented limit parameter and ambiguous sort order, the description leaves real gaps an agent would need resolved.

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 single parameter "limit" has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so its semantics (count of files, default 30) are completely undocumented. The description does not 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?

States a specific verb ("Lista") and resource ("os arquivos mais recentes na pasta de saída") plus the file formats covered, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like open_file or freecad_run_file, keeping it from 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?

No statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no mention of what happens if the output folder is empty. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose sentence.

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