school_infoRetorna informações institucionais da Escola de Rádio: CNPJ, endereço, contatos, horários, modalidades de curso oferecidas. Bom ponto de partida pra entender o que a escola é.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, placing the burden on the description. The description only states what the tool returns and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. This is minimal transparency.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with key information, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and types of returned data. However, it could be more complete by specifying the response structure or format, which 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?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds value by listing the content of the response, which is not required but helpful.
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 clearly states that the tool returns institutional information of the school, listing specific data points (CNPJ, endereço, contatos, horários, modalidades). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_course or list_courses, which focus on courses rather than overall school info.
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?
The description implies the tool is a good starting point to understand the school, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: course availability vs upcoming classes, detailed vs summary listings, separate tools for blog, podcast, services, teachers, radio, school info, and cross-content search. No overlapping tool descriptions.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, check_), but 'radio_now_playing' and 'school_info' deviate slightly, and 'search' is a single verb. Nonetheless, the naming is mostly consistent and predictable.
15 tools is well-scoped for a school information server covering courses, blog, podcast, radio, services, teachers, and institutional info. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for informational queries about the school: all major content types (courses, blog, podcast, radio) have list/detail tools, real-time availability, search, and institutional info. No obvious gaps for a read-only knowledge server.