obter_ativos_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the return shape ('success' plus 'data' or 'error'), which is already covered by the output schema, and says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, volume of results, or failure conditions.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence. The trailing 'Returns' block is redundant given the output schema exists, but it is short enough not to be wasteful.

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 no-argument read tool with a declared output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it returns. It falls short only on routing the agent away from the near-identical obter_ativos_detalhes_tool, which is the one piece of context that matters most here.

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 no parameter semantics to document; the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. Baseline 4 applies for a no-arg tool.

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 verb and resource ('Lista todos os ativos disponiveis no sistema'), so an agent knows this returns the full asset list. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely-named sibling obter_ativos_detalhes_tool, leaving the boundary between 'list assets' and 'asset details' to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The phrase 'no sistema' implies a full unfiltered listing, but the description never tells the agent when to prefer this over obter_ativos_detalhes_tool or the other obter_* siblings.

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