Retrieve the list of Sienge departments, optionally refreshing the 24-hour cached data to ensure current values for organizing accounts payable entries.
Lista os departamentos do Sienge (apropriação opcional do título). Cache de 24h.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| atualizar | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an important behavior: 'Cache de 24h', indicating results may be stale for up to 24 hours. However, it does not clarify whether the operation has side effects, how the 'atualizar' parameter interacts with the cache, or any permissions needed.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The unclear parenthetical phrase 'apropriação opcional do título' prevents a perfect score because it does not clearly earn its place.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, this description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It omits what 'atualizar' does, what the response contains, and whether the cache can be bypassed.
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% and the description never explains the boolean parameter 'atualizar'. The cache note hints that refreshing may be possible, but the connection is not explicit, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lista os departamentos do Sienge', which clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools by domain object. However, the parenthetical 'apropriação opcional do título' is ambiguous and adds noise without clarifying scope.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling list tools such as listar_empresas or listar_centros_custo. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided; usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'Lista'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.