Listar meus simulados

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses what comes back (data, filtros, nota only when corrected), which is meaningful because no output schema exists. It does not mention ordering, result limits, or behavior when no exams exist, leaving some gaps.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return content appended. Nothing is redundant. The only minor cost is that 'filtros' is ambiguous in a tool with no filter parameters, which slightly blurs the sentence.

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?

With no input schema and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it sketches the payload only in outline (date, filters, grade if corrected). It says nothing about ordering, volume, or the empty-list case, which an agent would need to interpret results reliably. Adequate for a simple list tool, but not fully complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The phrase 'com ... filtros' could momentarily suggest filtering options, but no such parameters exist, and the wording reads as describing returned fields rather than inputs.

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 gives a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('os simulados criados'), and adds that each entry carries date, filters, and grade when corrected. That is enough to separate it from criar_simulado or corrigir_simulado, which act on a single exam. It stops short of naming listar_provas as the sibling that returns the underlying exams rather than the user's generated mock exams, so differentiation is inferred from the noun only.

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?

'simulados criados' implicitly scopes the call to exams the user has created, which is a usage hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer listar_provas or meu_desempenho instead, and no note on prerequisites such as whether any exams must exist first.

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