rtc_descrever_erro

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 indicates a non-destructive translation behavior, but does not disclose what happens with invalid or unknown codes, nor the exact return format. This is a notable gap for a tool with no structured annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and core input/output.

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 simple one-parameter translation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential input and output concepts. It lacks explicit alternative guidance and invalid-input behavior, but the complexity is low enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only a bare parameter name ('codigo'). The description compensates by clarifying the parameter is an error code returned by the calculator, giving meaningful context beyond the schema. It stops short of specifying exact formats or examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('Traduz') and a clear resource ('código de erro devolvido pela calculadora') with a defined output ('descrição legível'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validation or tax-calculation functions.

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 implies usage when the calculator returns an error code, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or mention any exclusions. The context is enough to infer the basic trigger, but not fully explicit.

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