contexto_projeto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses two important behaviors: the index refreshes itself (only changed files) and results include previously resolved decisions/errors stored via `lembrar`. What it omits is that auto-indexing implies a write side effect and any cost/latency characteristics of the first scan.

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?

Three short sentences with the outcome stated first and the usage rule second; little waste. The trailing 'pasta: raiz do projeto' fragment is slightly awkward but still useful.

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 needn't be described, and the behavioral story is reasonably complete for a retrieval tool. However, the near-total absence of parameter semantics for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage leaves a real gap.

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 should compensate for all three parameters. It only clarifies `pasta` ('raiz do projeto'); `tarefa` is only implied by the phrase 'relevantes para a tarefa', and `quantos` (default 5) is never explained, leaving the agent to guess its meaning and units.

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 resource and result: the most relevant project excerpts for a task, including file and line positions. It implicitly distinguishes itself from file-listing/search siblings by framing itself as an alternative to 'abrir ou procurar arquivos' and by naming the related 'lembrar' tool. It is missing only an explicit contrast with close siblings like 'ler_relevante' or 'indexar_projeto'.

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?

It gives clear timing guidance: 'Use ANTES de abrir ou procurar arquivos num projeto', and explains the benefit versus reading whole folders. There are no explicit exclusion conditions, but the when-to-use case is unambiguous.

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