Ler uma tarefa inteira

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool returns the complete task including subtasks, and explains that lists truncate text on purpose. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe potential limitations or edge cases. The description aligns with annotations, no contradiction.

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 only two sentences, no redundant words. It front-loads the core behavior first, then gives a precise usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description is fully adequate. It explains the return value (complete task, subtasks) and when to use it. The output schema is absent, but the description compensates by summarizing the output contents. Annotations cover safety, so no further context is needed.

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 input schema covers the single parameter 'task' thoroughly with a description ('O id da tarefa (o número que aparece como #123).') and a minimum value. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The tool description reinforces the parameter's role by linking it to retrieving the full task, but no additional semantics are provided beyond 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 states what the tool does: 'A tarefa COMPLETA: título e descrição sem corte, mais as subtarefas', indicating it retrieves a full task with all details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the complete, untruncated nature versus lists that cut off text. The verb is implicit but the resource and scope are explicit.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use sempre que o título aparecer cortado com "…" nas listas e você precisar do texto inteiro'. It clearly tells the agent when to invoke this tool (when truncated titles are seen) and explains that tables truncate intentionally, making this tool the solution. It does not mention when not to use, but the trigger is specific and actionable.

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