Gerar infográfico

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (which only flag write + open-world), the description discloses the ~1-2 min latency, that a PNG file is written, and the exact fixed output directory — genuinely useful operational facts. It does not mention AI quota consumption even though the uso_maximo parameter implies metering.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the artifact, with no filler. The clause "com a descrição do conteúdo" is slightly ambiguous about whether a textual description is produced or consumed, which keeps it from a 5.

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 an 8-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers duration and file destination but leaves the return value (path? textual description? link) and the quota/uso_maximo relationship to notebook_uso unexplained. Adequate, but a caller still has open questions.

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 100% with 8 well-documented parameters including three enums, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters (foco, fontes, uso_maximo) and only indirectly signals the notebook_uso cross-reference through the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Gera um infográfico") and adds the output form (PNG) and the approximate duration. It is distinguishable from siblings like notebook_gerar_slides or flow_gerar_imagem by naming the artifact, but it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this over notebook_gerar_slides, notebook_gerar_mapa_mental, or flow_gerar_imagem, and no prerequisites (auth, notebook selection) are mentioned. The only contextual hint is the fixed output directory, which is about results, not usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.