Listar páginas do webapp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by characterizing the output as a 'complete map' of .xhtml pages and tying it to the follow-up open step, though it omits anything about output format details.

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 tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and scope, the second gives the follow-up action. No filler or redundancy.

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 a zero-param listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what is returned (paths to webapp pages) and how to use them. Minor gap in not describing the exact return shape, but adequate.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, list-everything operation rather than suggesting filters.

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 precise verb+resource: it maps/list the .xhtml pages of the webapp, and adds concrete examples (calculos, índices, INSS, IRPF, FGTS, custas, pagamento, cartão de ponto). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like pjecalc_abrir_interface, which consumes the returned path rather than producing the map.

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 second sentence explicitly routes the agent to the next action: use pjecalc_abrir_interface with the returned path to open each page. This gives clear context for when the tool is used, though it does not state exclusions or when not to use it.

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