aya_regras_listar

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing action, but it does not disclose whether the tool scans directories, filters, caches, writes anything, or how it behaves when no RNs are found. The output format is only partially hinted at.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, it is so sparse that it omits important contextual and parameter information, so it is concise more by omission than by design.

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?

The tool is simple, but without annotations or an output schema the description should supply more. It states the main output but does not explain what 'RNs encontrados' depends on, how 'pasta' affects results, or what an agent should expect regarding empty results or return formatting.

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 never mentions the 'pasta' parameter. The non-trivial default '#Saida' is left unexplained, so the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and default already visible in the 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 states a clear verb and a concrete resource: it lists RNs found and the files where they appear. This is enough to recognize the tool as a read/list operation and to distinguish it from detection-oriented siblings, though the acronym RN is not expanded and no sibling is explicitly contrasted.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus similar listing or detection tools. No prerequisites, no expected workflow, and no mention of when the default 'pasta' would or would not fit are provided.

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