Tempo de contribuição (CNIS): soma os vínculos contando concomitância uma vez e converte atividade especial em comum (fatores EC 103/2019, só até 13/11/2019). Retorna tempo total e se atinge o tempo antigo (35H/30M).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sexo | Yes | ||
| vinculos | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description goes beyond them with concrete behavior: it counts simultaneous vínculos once, converts special activity using EC 103/2019 factors only through 13/11/2019, and returns total time plus a threshold check. These details materially shape how an agent invokes and interprets the tool.
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 dense sentences with no filler. The main subject is front-loaded ('Tempo de contribuição (CNIS)'), followed by the algorithm and return values; every clause adds information.
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 complex legal calculation with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs, the key rules, and the return value at a high level. It is slightly incomplete around output format and date/string formats, but it is still sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does: 'soma os vínculos' explains the array semantics, 'converte atividade especial' clarifies the tipo enum, and the 35H/30M threshold implies how sexo is used. It does not define date format for inicio/fim or map each ESPECIAL_* value to its factor, leaving a small gap.
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 a specific verb and resource: it computes contribution time from CNIS vínculos, explicitly naming the calculation rules (concomitância counted once, special-activity conversion). The scope is clearly distinct from sibling calculo_* tools (RMI, FGTS, dosimetria), so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.
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 usage context is implied ('use this when you need CNIS contribution time and special-activity conversion'), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. Given many calculo_* siblings, explicit routing would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.