Yarn Application Attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state that this is a non-destructive lookup, whether the result is a fixed list or cluster-dependent, or whether attribute values/operators are included. The only behavioral hint is the extra_filter usage context.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is concise to the point of under-specification rather than because it is efficient. Length is fine; content is thin.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the definition leaves the required 'cluster' parameter, the role of 'service', and the link to the extra_filter consumer entirely unaddressed. For a filter-helper tool, an agent still lacks what it needs to call this correctly.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the two parameters. It does not explain that 'cluster' is the required CM cluster identifier nor what the optional 'service' scopes or defaults to, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 identifies the resource ('atributos aceitos no filtro de aplicações YARN do CM'), so an agent can infer it enumerates valid filter attribute names for YARN applications. However, it never states the operation explicitly (list? return values?) and never names the sibling tool that consumes 'extra_filter', so differentiation from yarn_list_applications is left implicit.

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 parenthetical '(para usar em extra_filter)' implies this is a helper to call before filtering with extra_filter, which is real usage guidance. But it does not name the sibling tool that owns that parameter, nor state when not to call it (e.g., if attributes are already known).

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