Respostas rápidas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the scope detail that the replies are team-wide rather than personal; it says nothing about volume, pagination, or whether archived replies are included, which is exactly the extra context a reader would want once annotations carry the safety signal.

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?

A single sentence with no padding, front-loaded with the verb and resource and followed by the purpose clause. The bilingual parenthetical earns its place by mapping the English term to the product's UI label, though the sentence is so terse that it leaves the usage boundary implicit.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (the team's registered quick replies) and why an agent would call it. The remaining gaps — result size, ordering, and the contrast with template-listing siblings — are modest given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the empty schema does not support.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("List the team's quick replies") and even supplies the Portuguese name used in the product, so the intent is unambiguous. It does not explicitly separate itself from the nearby aspa_list_templates or aspa_search_knowledge siblings, so the reader must infer the distinction from the noun 'quick replies'.

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 clause "to reuse their wording in drafts" gives an implied usage context, telling the agent this is a read step that precedes drafting or replying. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. list_templates) or states when not to call it, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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