Gerar relatório

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a 30-90 s duration, the mapping of formato to file type, and the fact that files ALWAYS land in a fixed absolute path on this PC. It doesn't mention overwrite behavior for existing files, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior and latency in the first clause, then layers model and output-path detail. Dense but every sentence carries usable information; only the escaped-path string is slightly noisy.

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 7-parameter generation tool with an output schema absent but full schema coverage and annotations present, the description covers duration, artifact format, output location, and model requirements. What remains uncovered (behavior on repeated calls / overwrite) is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns above that: it enumerates the modelo values, flags foco as mandatory for the 'Crie do zero' model, and clarifies what formato=documento vs interativo produces. This meaningfully enriches the modelo and formato parameters beyond their schema text.

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 and resource ('Gera um relatório') plus concrete outputs (.md for documento, .html for interativo) and expected latency. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like notebook_gerar_slides or notebook_gerar_audio by naming the report artifact, but never routes the agent explicitly against those siblings or notebook_exportar.

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?

Provides operational context (which models exist, that 'Crie do zero' requires foco, that the error lists available models) but gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance versus the many other generation tools. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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