Listar saídas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: it lists competências and note counts, mentions the directory 'saidas/', and implies no side effects. No contradictions.

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 sentences: first describes what the tool does, second gives usage guidance and safety. Efficient and front-loaded, every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, read-only, has output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavior. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear pattern and description. The description adds context by mentioning 'processadas em saidas/' and the format 'AAAA-MM', which goes beyond the schema's description. It also implies 'vazio lista todas' without restating it.

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 clearly states the verb 'Lista' (lists), the resource 'competências (pastas AAAA-MM) já processadas em saidas/', and the result 'quantas notas cada uma tem'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its read-only nature and use case before reprocessing.

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?

Explicitly says 'use para ver o histórico antes de reprocessar', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also states 'Read-only' implying safe usage. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context is sufficient given the sibling tools.

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