Buscar tarefas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds modest context by clarifying the return type ('não linhas' vs numbers) and that the tool lists tasks for later editing, but it does not disclose pagination, default limits, or any additional behavioral nuances beyond the annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and a clear usage alternative in the second. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 list-with-filters tool, the description plus the comprehensive schema annotations cover the essential information: what it lists, how to filter, and when to prefer an alternative. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the obvious 'lines' vs 'numbers' contrast, though it could have briefly mentioned default limits or that results are flat rows.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description's grouping of filters ('projeto, responsável, situação e período') is a helpful summary but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 opens with 'Lista tarefas filtrando por projeto, responsável, situação e período' — a specific verb ('lista') plus resource ('tarefas') and the main filtering dimensions. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool systemtask_project_report by contrasting 'devolve números, não linhas' with returning the task lines themselves.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Para saber COMO um projeto está, prefira systemtask_project_report... use esta quando precisar das tarefas em si, para citar ou editar.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus an alternative, satisfying both positive and negative use cases.

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