Planejar pedido

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait — nothing is executed — and describes the output content (tags, restrictions, tool calls, arguments). This gives an agent an accurate safety and behavior model, though it does not discuss limit semantics or response format details.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core safety behavior, and every part of the sentence adds meaning. It is compact without losing important information.

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 planning/preview tool, the description explains the non-execution behavior and the main output components well. It is incomplete only because the limit parameter is left undefined and no explicit alternative (orchestrate) is named for execution.

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 only 50%: request is documented, but limit has no description in the schema and the tool description never mentions it. An agent cannot determine what limit limits (e.g., number of tool calls, number of tags, or plan entries), which is a significant gap.

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's purpose: it shows, without executing, what the Core understood from a request — detected tags, extracted restrictions, and which entity tools would be called with translated arguments. This distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like orchestrate and call_entity_tool.

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 phrase 'sem executar nada' establishes a clear preview/dry-run context, so an agent can infer this tool should be used before executing a request. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the behavior is clear enough.

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