Detalhes de um componente curricular

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the output content and implies a read-only lookup through the word 'detalhes', but it does not explicitly state that the operation causes no changes, mention authentication requirements, or describe failure behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause defines what the tool returns, and the second sentence maps both parameters to their source. Every sentence earns its place without verbose explanations.

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 two-parameter, schema-rich lookup tool, the description is largely complete: it states the returned data categories and the exact provenance of both inputs. It omits minor operational details such as error behavior or login prerequisites, but those are likely common to all sigaa_* tools.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by linking each parameter to a specific upstream field from sigaa_get_curriculo, which is extra navigation semantics that the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 identifies the resource ('componente curricular específico') and enumerates the returned data categories: ementa, tipo, modalidade, carga horária, pré-requisitos e equivalências. It lacks an explicit verb like 'consulta' or 'retorna', but the intended purpose is unmistakable.

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 provides concrete usage guidance by stating that both parameters come from sigaa_get_curriculo, mapping idComponente to componentes[].id and curriculo to estruturaCurricular.codigo. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but it clearly explains the expected workflow.

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