listar_fluxos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only action ('Lista') and describes the output, implying no side effects. It does not mention auth, pagination, or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter list operation this is adequate and not misleading.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, then clarifies scope and output. There is no redundant or filler content; every phrase adds value.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states what is listed, the user scope, the system, and the key output attribute (process count). The analogy to 'Meus Processos' adds helpful context, and with an output schema available, nothing else is needed.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline per rubric is 4. The schema is empty and the description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed. The description appropriately focuses on the list semantics and output content.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('caixas (fluxos)') with scope ('do usuário no SPA-PMT') and output content ('total de processos em cada uma'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'listar_caixa' by describing a user-level overview with counts, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by equating the tool to the 'Meus Processos' tabs, strongly implying when to use it (when an overview of all user's boxes with counts is needed). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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