aya_testes_listar

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state side effects, whether it searches recursively, what 'encontrados' means, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotation safety hints, this is a significant gap.

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; every word contributes meaning. It is concise without being a bare tautology, though it could be expanded with parameter and usage details without becoming bloated.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description conveys the core return value: CTs and the files where they appear. However, it omits the meaning of the 'pasta' parameter, the source of 'encontrados', and there is no output schema to fill that gap. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 exposes a single optional parameter 'pasta' with default '#Saida' and 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions 'pasta', how it influences the search, or what '#Saida' represents. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but no real semantic detail is added beyond 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 ('Lista'), resource ('CTs encontrados'), and associated result ('arquivos onde aparecem'). It is distinguishable from the sibling 'aya_testes_detectar_genericos' because 'listar' implies enumeration rather than detection. However, the acronym 'CTs' is undefined and the phrase 'encontrados' does not specify where or how they are found.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'aya_testes_detectar_genericos'. The description does not state preconditions, use cases, or when another test-related tool would be more appropriate.

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