aguardar_tarefa

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds the timing contract (default 10, max 25 seconds, may return earlier on stage change) and the required UI behavior of surfacing `progresso` each call. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentences that front-load the action (monitor) followed by the timing and UI instructions; there is little waste. Slightly terse given the tool's polling nature, but well-structured.

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 read-only polling tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing pieces: timing bounds, early-return behavior, and the directive to display `progresso` and re-call. Adequate to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `segundos` semantics (default 10, max 25) beyond the schema's bare default, but says nothing about `tarefa_id` (the required param), leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Acompanha uma tarefa em segundo plano') and gives concrete examples (login, coleta), so an agent can tell it is a background-task poller. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear operational context: it returns within `segundos` or earlier on stage change, and instructs the agent to show the `progresso` line and 'chame de novo' (call again), defining the polling loop. No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the usage pattern is spelled out.

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