Resumo de tickets por prioridade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: results are grouped by priority, ordered descending, expressed as count and percentage, and supplemented with open/closed totals. It does not discuss permissions or any mutation risk, but for a read-only aggregation that is a minor omission rather than a contradiction.

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 dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the purpose and then the outputs before the filters, so the most important information comes first. Slightly long but every clause carries substantive content.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return structure and nearly all filter semantics, which is close to sufficient. The unmentioned 'ordem' parameter and the missing date format hint keep it from being 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names status, área, departamento, operador, dataInicio/dataFim (período de abertura) and limite (top N), covering 7 of the 8 parameters. The 'ordem' parameter and the date format are the only gaps left undocumented.

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 (agrupa) and resource (tickets por prioridade), plus the exact output shape (quantidade, percentual, ordenado desc, totais abertos/fechados). This clearly separates it from sibling aggregation tools like resumo_tickets_por_status and resumo_tickets_por_area.

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 list of optional filters implies when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance relative to the many sibling resumo_* tools. Usage must be inferred from the aggregation shape.

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