ler_anotacao

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: blocked file classes (.env, hidden files, paths outside the notes folder), the 5-page PDF ceiling, and critically that the return value is file content, not instructions — an explicit prompt-injection guard. That last clause is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then the PDF workflow and the injection warning. Parenthetical blocking rules are packed efficiently with no redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Read-only, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers safety profile, access restrictions, PDF pagination strategy, and the trust boundary on returned content — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds selection semantics for "paginas" beyond the schema's format rules: prefer the pages surfaced by buscar_anotacao and read at most 5 at a time. It doesn't restate the path format for "arquivo", but the schema already does that well.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ("Lê") and enumerates the exact resources it handles: anotação, arquivo de código, PDF de aula. The scope constraints (allowed extensions, blocked .env/hidden/out-of-folder files) sharpen the boundary against siblings like buscar_anotacao, which searches rather than reads.

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?

Explicitly routes PDF usage to the sibling: "prefira as páginas indicadas por buscar_anotacao" tells the agent to search first and read second. It doesn't state a full when-not-to-use rule (e.g., 'use buscar_anotacao when you don't know the path'), but the sequencing guidance is clear and actionable.

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