Ver HTML cru de uma página do SIGAA

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses raw no-parsing output, that error/expired-session pages are returned for inspection, and session/auth dependency. It does not mention response status codes or redirects, but the key behaviors are covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, and every clause earns its place: URL scope, session behavior, raw output, error handling, and the login prerequisite.

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 simple fetch tool with no output schema and one required parameter, the description is reasonably complete: it covers what is returned, the auth prerequisite, and that errors are not masked. The main gap is not positioning it relative to sigaa_raw_request, a sibling that may overlap.

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 documents url, method, and referer with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by restricting the URL to the sigs.ufrpe.br domain, which is not in the schema. It does not detail method/referer, but those are fully described in the schema.

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 action ('Busca uma URL sob sigs.ufrpe.br') and a precise output ('HTML bruto da resposta, sem nenhum parsing'), including error/session-expired pages. It clearly separates this from parsed-data siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the similarly low-level sibling sigaa_raw_request.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite ('Use sigaa_login antes se a página exigir autenticação') and a purpose ('para inspeção'). It does not explicitly say when to prefer sigaa_raw_request or parsed siblings, so some alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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