list_top_blast_radius

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) indicate no side effects, which partially covers behavior. However, the description itself does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it returns a paginated list, the default order, or if it requires prior data loading. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds no transparency beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence in Portuguese. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and does not include superfluous details. The structure is clean and easy to parse, aligning with the ideal of brevity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining what the agent should expect. It only states the ranking concept but omits details like the return type, fields, sorting order, and any required environment setup. Without this context, the agent may struggle to handle the response 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?

The parameter 'limit' has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not mention it. Consequently, there is zero coverage from both schema and description. The name 'limit' suggests a cap on results, but it is not explicit. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, making the parameter's meaning ambiguous for an agent.

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 tool's purpose: it provides a ranking of identities by blast radius. The verb 'list' and the phrase 'Ranking de identidades' together convey the action and subject. It is distinct from computing blast radius for a specific identity (e.g., compute_identity_blast_radius) based on the name and description. However, it does not define 'blast radius' or mention the output format, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for a global ranking (as opposed to per-identity computation) or any preconditions (e.g., needing environment data first). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling tools, which is not sufficient for robust selection.

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