listar_caixa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: the `busca` parameter is applied client-side because server-side filtering triggers HTTP 500 (a bug), and with a search it downloads up to 500 lines and filters locally. It also lists specific known caixa IDs, adding useful context beyond the schema. This exceeds expectations for a simple list operation.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, then a bulleted list of known caixas. Every line adds value — the list of IDs is practical, and the note about `listar_fluxos` is directly useful. No filler or redundant content.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are already documented), the description covers all necessary contextual aspects: the tool's purpose, how to specify a caixa, a critical bug behavior, and an alternative tool for getting the list of caixas. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

All four parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the `busca` parameter by explaining the client-side filter and the bug, which is not evident from the schema alone. This additional nuance justifies a 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 clearly states 'Lista os processos de uma caixa do SPA-PMT (fluxo)' — a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('processos de uma caixa'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `listar_fluxos` by noting that `listar_fluxos` provides the updated list of caixas with totals, while this tool lists the processes inside a given caixa.

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?

The description explains when to use this tool: to list processes in a known caixa, and points to `listar_fluxos` as the alternative for retrieving the list of caixas with totals. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus other siblings like `buscar_processo`, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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