analisar_sped

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the input format (pipe-delimited text) and that it extracts information, but does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or idempotency. Since it is a read-only analysis, the description is adequate but could be more explicit about safety and limitations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and key details. It is concise without being overly terse, though it could include more usage guidance without losing conciseness.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately focuses on input and purpose. It covers the file types, extracted information, and input format. However, it omits mention of file size limits, encoding, or asynchronous processing, which are minor gaps for a file analysis 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds 'formato pipe-delimitado' reiterating what the schema already says for 'conteudo', and does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. No additional semantics are provided for 'nome_arquivo'.

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 verb 'analisa' (analyzes) and the resource 'arquivo SPED' with specific types (EFD-ICMS/IPI, etc.), and outlines what information is extracted. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'summarize_sped' (summarizes) and 'listar_registros_sped' (lists records) by implying a comprehensive analysis.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'summarize_sped' or 'listar_registros_sped'. Usage is implied for when a detailed extraction of period, company, errors, etc. is needed, but no when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are stated.

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