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 declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important non-obvious behavior: EC 103/2019 conversion factors, the 13/11/2019 cutoff, concurrency counting, and the return of total time plus old-rule threshold. This goes well beyond what annotations and schema alone provide.
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 dense, front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then algorithm, then return values. Every clause adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema metadata.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core algorithm, the special-activity date cutoff, and the return intent (total time and whether old threshold is reached). It does not specify exact output field names, units, or edge-case behavior, but it is substantially complete for invocation.
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 compensate. It does link sexo to the 35H/30M threshold and interprets vínculos as contribution links with special-activity conversion. However, it does not explain the vinculos item fields (inicio, fim, tipo) or expected date format beyond what the raw schema structure provides.
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 resource (tempo de contribuição/CNIS) and states exact operations: summing bonds, counting simultaneity once, and converting special activity to common time. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools like calculo_pensao or calculo_rmi.
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 gives clear context: this tool is for CNIS contribution time and returns whether the old 35H/30M threshold is reached. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is sufficiently clear to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.