listar_posts_cliente

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description mirrors this with 'Somente leitura', adding no contradiction. It also adds context about the returned data (approval statuses) and the prerequisite for client_id. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination or filtering, so the added value beyond annotations is limited.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose and key output fields, and the second adds the read-only qualifier and the prerequisite. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool without any redundancy.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the tool's purpose, the type of data returned, and the required input context. It could mention the return structure more explicitly, but the mention of approval statuses provides a good indication of what is returned.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'cliente_id', specifying it as a UUID exactly as returned by listing tools. The description's mention of obtaining it from 'listar_clientes' adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since schema fully covers parameter meaning.

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 the tool's function: listing a client's posts with approval statuses for text and design. The verb 'Lista' (lists) is specific, and the resource 'posts de um cliente' is well-defined. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'criar_post' and 'atualizar_post' by focusing on listing, and from 'consultar_post' by indicating a per-client scope.

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 a clear usage prerequisite: it requires a client_id obtained from 'listar_clientes'. This implies a sequencing context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'consultar_post', so it stops short of a full exclusionary guideline.

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