Ler template CSV de importação

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 the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that these are 'exemplo' reference files but does not describe return shape or listing behavior. Against annotation-covered reads, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentences; the resource definition is front-loaded and the intended use follows. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly less than 5 because the category list is a bit long but it is informative rather than 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 a single-parameter, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it says what is inside the files and why to read them. The only minor gap is that it does not restate that an empty argument lists available templates, but the schema covers that.

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 schema already explains the path format and the empty-string listing behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Conteúdo dos arquivos CSV de exemplo') and enumerates the categories (cartão de ponto, jornada, faltas, férias, histórico salarial), so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not name a sibling it overlaps with, but no sibling provides this template content, so no differentiation is strictly needed.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use como referência para gerar arquivos de importação.' This tells the agent when the tool is valuable. However, it offers no when-not guidance or alternative tools, keeping it short of a perfect score.

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