status_do_livro

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'o livro nunca finge tempo real', informing the agent data may not be live. It also implies read-only by instructing to call before trusting numbers, but does not explicitly state it is side-effect-free. With annotations absent, this added context raises transparency, though it could be more explicit about non-mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core 'what it reports', then a usage directive. No wasted words, efficient and structured. The dash provides a natural pause, and every clause carries necessary 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema (which likely details the return structure), the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to call it, and a important limitation. It could mention that it is read-only, but that is implied by the status-check nature. Overall, it is nearly complete for a simple status 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them. The baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (cursors, hash chain), which indirectly clarifies the tool's purpose, though it says nothing about parameters since none exist.

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 clearly states the tool reports data freshness: 'cursores do coletor (bloco por rede) e a corrente de hash (seq/elos)'. This is distinct from sibling tools (gasto, compras, etc.) which likely return business data, not status. The verb 'status' and resource 'livro' are specific, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'Chame antes de confiar em qualquer número', giving a clear when-to-use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. Since siblings are data-focused, the context implies this is a prefix check, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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