organizar_pasta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the tool is strictly read-only ("nunca move, renomeia ou apaga nada"), discloses that it writes report files to disk, and warns about runtime on multi-GB folders along with the mitigation (hash comparison only reads whole files when size and a chunk match). It stops short of stating whether existing reports are overwritten or what credentials/OmniRoute access are required.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with what it does and what it produces, then the safety/performance caveats. The duplicate-hashing detail is technical but earns its place by justifying the slow-runtime warning; nothing is padded.

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, and the description still adds the artifact formats and destination directory. Combined with the read-only guarantee and performance caveat, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the "pasta" path format remains unspecified.

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% for the single required parameter "pasta", and the description adds nothing about expected format, absolute vs relative path, whether a trailing slash matters, or whether the folder must exist. The one parameter the agent must supply is left entirely to guesswork.

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 ("Levanta uma pasta") plus the exact artifacts produced (inventário, duplicados por hash, sugestão de estrutura) and where they are written (dados/organizador/). No sibling tool does folder analysis, so an agent can route here unambiguously without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the described outcome — use it when you want an inventory/duplicate analysis of a folder — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the siblings. The only guidance is the implicit inference from the read-only nature of the operation.

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