Tabelas de calibração do painel: CSVs de distribuição (pesos do sorteio original) e registro de taxas. Sem nome, lista os arquivos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arquivo | No | Nome do CSV, 'manifest.md' ou 'taxas' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies it lists files but does not state whether it is read-only, whether it requires authorization, or if there are side effects. The description is insufficient for safe agent 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 short and front-loads the key information. However, the use of Portuguese and fragmented phrasing reduces clarity. It is concise but could be more precise.
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 no annotations, the description should explain the return format or behavior more thoroughly. It mentions listing files but not what the output looks like or how to interpret results. Adequate but incomplete.
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 covers 100% of the parameter 'arquivo' with a description, but the description adds the critical hint that omitting the parameter will list all files ('Sem nome, lista os arquivos'). This adds meaning beyond the schema.
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 tool as relating to calibration tables of a panel, specifically distribution CSVs and fee records. It clearly states the resource types. However, the phrasing is fragmented and slightly confusing, missing a clear verb like 'get' or '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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_instituicao or get_personas. The description does not specify context or prerequisites for invoking it.
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: overview, fact search, persona filtering, persona details, sampling, survey preparation, confidence assessment, distributions, institution info, and voice examples. No two tools overlap significantly.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but some use English prefixes (get_) while others use Portuguese verbs (avaliar_, buscar_). This inconsistency could cause confusion, though the names are still readable.
10 tools is appropriate for the synthetic panel domain. Each tool serves a distinct function without redundancy, and the count is neither too few nor too many.
The tool set covers the full workflow: overview, question classification, fact retrieval, persona filtering and display, sampling, survey preparation, distribution tables, institution lookup, and voice examples. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.