mostrar_arquivo

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why: the side effect is a local OS window (Finder/Explorer), not a data mutation. It adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations — "Não chama a API" and the scope limit to connector output/conversation-generated files. It does not say what is returned or what happens if the path is invalid.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the platform caveat, then the usage trigger and scope limit. Every sentence carries information; the parenthetical about Linux is slightly verbose but justified because behavior differs across platforms.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does, when to use it, its scope limits, and that it bypasses the API. The only missing piece is failure behavior for an invalid or out-of-scope path, which is a minor 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 100% and the single caminho parameter is already documented there as a full path to a generated file or folder. The description adds no format, validation, or provenance detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (abre) and resource (pasta do sistema com o arquivo selecionado) and details the platform-specific behavior (Finder/Explorer/Linux). An agent can distinguish this local-UI action from the API-oriented siblings like exportar_preenchimentos or gerar_pdf_modelo without opening any 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?

"Use quando ele pedir para abrir o arquivo ou a pasta" gives an explicit trigger, and "Só abre o que está na pasta de saída do conector ou o que alguma ferramenta gerou nesta conversa" is effectively a when-not constraint. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but no sibling offers comparable behavior, so the gap is minor.

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