Listar tickets abertos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors: the tool both lists and counts, and 'aberto' is defined operationally as 'sem data de fechamento'. It says nothing about permissions, response shape, or whether pagination is capped by limite, which are real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 well-formed sentence with the core scope constraint front-loaded before the filter list. No filler, though it is a dense enumeration rather than a structured breakdown.

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 8-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and parameter inventory but omits return format and pagination behavior (does it report a total count? how does pagina interact with limite?). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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. It enumerates all eight parameters by role — area, departamento, operador, prioridade, dataInicio/dataFim, limite, pagina — which groups them meaningfully by filter type, but adds no format detail (e.g., the YYYY-MM-DD pattern or the 1-100 limite cap) beyond what the property names already convey.

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 (lists and counts) and resource (tickets), and crisply defines scope: only tickets without a closing date. This distinguishes it in substance from siblings like listar_tickets_fechados and listar_tickets, though it never names an alternative directly.

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 scope definition ('ainda não encerrados, sem data de fechamento') implies when to pick this over the generic listar_tickets or the fechados variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no prerequisites.

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