Resumo de tickets por status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses aggregation behavior (sorted descending, includes totals of open and closed tickets) but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and then the filters. Dense but every clause adds information; no filler.

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, no-output-schema aggregation tool, the description adequately covers what is returned and which filters apply. The only real omission is guidance on when to use it versus the many sibling resumo tools.

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 across 8 parameters, the description compensates well by naming the filters (area, department, operator, priority), clarifying dataInicio/dataFim as the opening period, and defining limite as 'top N'. It does omit the 'ordem' parameter explicitly, though the descending default is implied.

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+resource (group tickets by status) and enumerates exactly what is reported: counts, percentages, ordering, and open/closed totals. This makes it readily distinguishable from siblings like resumo_tickets_por_prioridade 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?

Usage is only implied by 'por status' and the sibling naming. It never says when to prefer this over the other resumo_* tools or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection from the grouping dimension alone.

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