summarize_sped

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions input (local .txt file) and output (summary in pt-BR), but does not disclose error handling, file size limits, whether data is modified, or any permissions needed. Significant gaps remain.

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 concise sentences font-load the main purpose with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easily scannable.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete, covering input, process, and output. However, it lacks mention of error cases or limitations (e.g., file size, unsupported formats). For a complex SPED file, this could be insufficient, but as an executive summary tool, it is adequate.

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 sole parameter 'file_path' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds context: 'Recebe caminho de arquivo .txt local', clarifying file type and requirement for local file. However, it lacks details like absolute vs relative paths, file existence checks, or format constraints. The output schema exists, reducing need to explain return values.

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 provides an executive summary of SPED files, identifying type, extracting period, company, total records, blocks, and producing a summary in Portuguese. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analisar_sped' (likely deeper analysis) and 'listar_registros_sped' (listing records).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'analisar_sped' or 'listar_registros_sped'. The purpose is implied but no exclusions or usage context are given.

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