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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral rules: counting overlapping periods once, applying special-activity conversion factors only up to 13/11/2019, and returning total time plus whether old-time thresholds are met. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 dense sentences with no filler. The main calculation behavior is front-loaded, followed by the conversion rule and the return value, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential return semantics (total time and threshold attainment) and the key calculation rules. It omits some input-format details and explicit sexo mapping, but the schema enums and the threshold notation supply enough context for a read-only calculation 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does partially by explaining how vinculos are summed and special activity is converted. However, it does not explain the sexo parameter or the expected date formats, leaving the agent to infer from enums and the 35H/30M threshold hint.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it sums CNIS contribution links, handles concurrent periods once, and converts special activity to common using EC 103/2019 factors. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling calculo_* tools, which target different legal calculation domains.
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 useful context such as CNIS, the EC 103/2019 cutoff, and the old-time thresholds (35H/30M), which implies it is for contribution time calculations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is implicit rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.