listar_semestres

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds domain context about what data is returned (semester, PIT/RIT state, SUAP link), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the resource, though as a noun phrase it lacks the structural clarity of an explicit verb-led statement.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description gives enough context to understand what will be returned. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The only notable gap is the absence of routing guidance versus sibling tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema does not need parameter documentation. The description correctly does not invent any parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 names the resource (semesters) and what each record contains (PIT/RIT status and SUAP link), but does not use an explicit action verb like 'list'. It distinguishes itself from siblings only by implication; an agent can infer it returns a list, but the purpose is not stated as sharply as it could be.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resumo_semestre or coletar_semestre. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are provided.

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