list_agent_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by explaining that the result is the *resolved/effective* toolset (what the agent 'efetivamente terá disponível em runtime'), which is the key behavioral insight an agent needs. It does not mention permissions or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core scope (resolved tools of an agent) is front-loaded before the clarifying detail about runtime availability. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, single-parameter list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description explains both what is aggregated and what the output contains (name, description, parameters). Only the exact output format/pagination is unstated, which is minor here.

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 100% with a single required agent_id (uuid), so the schema fully documents the only input. The description mentions 'parâmetros' only as part of the output shape, not to add input semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Lista') and a precise resource ('ferramentas resolvidas de um agente') and clarifies scope by enumerating the three sources it aggregates (api_config + MCP tools + core tools). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_mcp_servers or list_agent_memory, which operate on raw configurations rather than the agent's effective runtime toolset.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect what tools an agent will actually have at runtime, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative sibling is named (e.g., list_mcp_servers for the raw server list). Nothing misleading, but nothing routing either.

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