gerar_memorialMemorial assinável + etiqueta ANSI/NBR. NUNCA é emitido autonomamente por IA — o documento é preparado na sua conta da plataforma para revisão e assinatura do responsável técnico.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | ||
| referencia_calculo | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the document is prepared for review and signature, which implies a non-destructive workflow. However, it does not detail what happens upon invocation (e.g., response format).
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, well-structured sentence that conveys essential information without superfluous text.
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 no output schema and minimal parameter descriptions, the description lacks critical information. The agent cannot determine the return value or how to properly invoke the tool.
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?
Neither the description nor the input schema (0% coverage) provide any explanation of the parameters. The agent cannot infer what 'referencia_calculo' means or how to use 'api_key'.
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 the tool generates a 'Memorial assinável + etiqueta ANSI/NBR' and emphasizes it is never autonomously issued by AI. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly calculation tools.
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 explicitly warns that the tool should not be used to autonomously emit the document ('NUNCA é emitido autonomamente por IA'), providing clear context for responsible use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives.
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 targets a distinct electrical calculation or administrative task. Overlapping concepts like 'calcular_curto_circuito' and 'partida_motor' have clearly different purposes (short-circuit vs. voltage dip). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in Portuguese, using snake_case. Examples include 'calcular_curto_circuito', 'dimensionar_cabo', and 'verificar_seccionamento'. There are no deviations or mixed conventions.
20 tools is well-scoped for a specialized electrical engineering calculations server. Each tool addresses a specific need without redundancy or excessive breadth. The count feels appropriate for the domain.
The tool set covers a comprehensive lifecycle: calculation (short-circuit, arc flash, motor starting), design (cable sizing, CT sizing, capacitor banks), coordination (protection time curves), verification (shock protection), and workflow (report generation, quote request). No obvious gaps for the intended purpose.