Listar tickets

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one real behavioral constraint ('Não filtra por coluna do Kanban'), which is useful negative context, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination behavior, default limits, or sort order for what is clearly a paged read (pagina/limite params exist).

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?

Two tight sentences: capabilities and filter list first, routing constraint second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it lists, what it does not filter, which sibling to prefer) is front-loaded.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation listing tool, the description covers scope, filters, and routing well. The gaps are pagination/return-volume behavior (default limite=50, pagina=1) and the ambiguity with the specialized list siblings, which an agent may need to disambiguate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates nearly every filter (status, área, departamento, operador, cliente, prioridade, número, dataInicio/dataFim) and gives a date format. It omits limite/pagina semantics, and the claim 'ou por extenso' conflicts with the schema's strict ^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}$ pattern, which could mislead on accepted date input.

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 and resource ('Lista tickets/chamados') and enumerates the filterable dimensions, so an agent immediately knows what the tool returns. It additionally draws a boundary against the resumo_tickets_por_* family, distinguishing this from count/aggregation siblings.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: use for individual records, prefer resumo_tickets_por_* for counting/grouping questions, with example keywords ('quantos', 'por status'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the specialized list siblings (listar_tickets_abertos, listar_tickets_fechados, listar_tickets_congelados, listar_tickets_sem_operador, listar_tickets_mais_recentes), which overlap heavily with status/operator filters here.

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