Arquivos do cliente

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states a noun phrase and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns file metadata or content, or how authorization/errors behave. The word 'autorizados' adds a weak access-control hint but no concrete behavior.

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 extremely compact, front-loads the resource, and contains no filler. It loses a point only because it is so terse that it reads as a fragment rather than a complete operational statement.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to carry the full operational context, but it leaves out the expected return shape, the precise meaning of 'arquivos autorizados', and any error or authorization behavior. It is enough to guess the purpose but not to invoke with full confidence.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by mapping the single codCpfCnpj parameter to a customer code, CPF, or CNPJ. This gives an agent enough semantic grounding for a single self-named parameter.

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 (client files) and the lookup key (code/CPF/CNPJ), but it is a noun phrase with no verb, so an agent must infer whether the tool lists, downloads, or manages those files. It is not a tautology, yet it does not clearly differentiate the action from sibling tools such as cliente_get or clientes_list.

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 choose this tool over alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or when it should not be used. The parenthetical 'por código/CPF/CNPJ' only hints at the input key, not the selection conditions.

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