Esquema de uma tabela H2

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint not in the annotations: the H2 database is locked while PJe-Calc runs and must be released first. It does not mention error behavior for unknown table names.

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 sentences, zero waste: the purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the blocking constraint follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned (name, type, nullability, default), and the locking precondition is stated. A read-only single-parameter tool needs little more; only failure behavior for invalid table names is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'tabela' parameter is documented with concrete examples (TBSELICDIARIA, TBVERBA, TBCALCULO). The description's field list refers to the returned columns rather than adding meaning to the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific resource and return shape: the columns (name, type, nullability, default) of one H2 table. An agent can distinguish this from db_tabelas (listing tables) or db_consultar (querying rows) by inference, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives a concrete operational precondition — the PJe-Calc keeps the database locked while running, so the app must be stopped (pjecalc_parar) before using database tools. That is real when-to-use guidance, but it does not contrast this tool with db_consultar/db_tabelas or state when schema inspection is preferable.

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