bancos__listar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral aspects like read-only status, caching, or rate limits. However, the tool is simple (no parameters, static list), so the lack of disclosure is less critical. No contradictions.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and return format are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is adequate. It mentions the output fields, but for a simple list tool, this is sufficient. Could be slightly improved by noting that it is a static list or read-only.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline 4 is appropriate. The description adds value by specifying the output fields, but this could be inferred from the output 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?

Description clearly states 'Lista todos os bancos do Brasil' (lists all banks in Brazil) and specifies the output fields. The sibling 'bancos__buscar' suggests a search/filter alternative, effectively distinguishing this tool as an unfiltered listing.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'bancos__buscar'. The implication is clear from the name, but the description does not provide direct usage context or exclusions.

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