Onde está o risco de um projeto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds behavioral logic: it includes late tasks, tasks without date/responsible, prioritizes the oldest tasks, and highlights the intersection of missing date AND responsible as the 'task nobody will do'. This gives the agent insight into selection criteria and prioritization.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the key question. It efficiently conveys the risk categories and the special meaning of the intersection. Minor redundancy exists in repeating 'sem data e sem responsável' but each sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 should clarify the return format. It explains the filtering logic and which tasks are considered risky, but does not state whether it returns a list of tasks, a summary, or what fields are included. This is a moderate gap given the absence of an output schema, but the tool's intent is reasonably clear.

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% for both parameters (project and sample), so the schema already fully documents their meaning. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond implying that 'sample' relates to the oldest tasks mentioned, but this is not a significant addition over the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose as surfacing project risks: late tasks, tasks without date, and tasks without assignee. It specifies the resource (project) and the specific risk dimensions, differentiating it from general task listing or report tools by focusing on problematic task categories.

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 description provides clear context about what the tool surfaces but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of sibling tools like systemtask_project_report or systemtask_tasks_search. The use case is implied (when you need to identify project risks), but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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