validar_evento_esocial

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

Describes specific validations performed (root element, event code, layout version). No annotations provided, so description carries burden; it does not explicitly state non-destructive nature but actions are clearly read-only. Could mention that no modifications occur.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with primary action. Efficient and clear.

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 single parameter, no nested objects, and existence of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. No missing essential behavioral details for a basic validation step.

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% for the single parameter xml_conteudo, with a description in schema. Tool description adds no additional meaning: it only repeats the parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it validates basic structure of an eSocial event XML, specifying checks for correct root element, event code, and layout version. Distinguishes from sibling tools like validar_chave_nfe that target different document types.

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?

Implied usage for basic eSocial XML validation, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus a more comprehensive validation tool. Lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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