Resumo de tickets por operador

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the default ordering (maior para menor) and the return content (quantidade e percentual), but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or behavior when no operator matches. Reasonable but not rich behavioral disclosure for a zero-annotation 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?

The output behavior is front-loaded, filters follow, and usage examples close. Every sentence is functional and nothing is padded, though the filter enumeration runs long in a single 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?

For an aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what is computed, how it is ordered, and which filters apply. It leaves gaps around authentication, empty-result behavior, and the distinction from similar summary tools, but the core is complete enough to invoke 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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates filters for status, área, departamento, prioridade, situação (aberto/fechado), período (dataInicio/dataFim) and limite (top N), which maps to eight of the nine parameters. Only 'ordem' is left implicit through the ordering statement, and no value formats or enum nuances are added.

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: it groups tickets by responsible operator and reports quantity plus percentage, ordered descending. Against siblings like resumo_tickets_por_status and resumo_tickets_por_area, the grouping dimension (operador) is unmistakable from the name and description alone.

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 three example questions ("quais operadores têm mais tickets?", "quantos tickets cada operador possui?", "quem tem mais chamados em aberto?") give concrete, unambiguous use contexts. However, it never names alternatives despite overlapping siblings such as resumo_operacional_tickets and analisar_carga_operador, so boundary cases are left to inference.

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