rtc_chamar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses a behavioral constraint—the path must be relative to the base and start with /calculadora—and points to the OpenAPI spec for further discovery. It does not describe the response shape, error behavior, or the possibility of side effects for non-GET endpoints, so transparency is partial.

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 compact sentences and a short example list; every clause serves a purpose and the key routing rule is front-loaded. No filler.

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?

As a fallback for an arbitrary endpoint, it gives the essential base-relative path rule and delegates full route discovery to {base}/api-docs. It still leaves the agent to infer response/error behavior and how optional method/body/query params map onto the request, and there is no annotation or output schema to fill that gap.

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 description adds real meaning to the required caminho parameter: relative to base, must start with /calculadora, with examples. However, none of the optional parameters (metodo, params, corpo) are explained in prose; only their schema names/defaults carry the meaning.

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 opens with a precise, actionable statement: it calls any official calculator API endpoint that lacks a dedicated tool, and gives three concrete route examples. This makes its purpose immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when no dedicated tool exists, which is a clear selection rule against the sibling set. It also tells the agent where the complete endpoint list can be found, so the decision can be resolved at the point of use.

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