pandape_documentos_precolaborador

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 clearly indicates a read operation ('Lista') and adds context about being the unique official API exposure. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, or behavior with invalid IDs, which are not covered elsewhere.

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 that convey purpose, scope, and a unique caveat without any waste. Every word contributes meaningful 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 simple list operation with one parameter, the description covers the main behavior and result type (download links). It does not describe output structure or pagination, but given the simplicity and the explicit mention of links, it is mostly complete. A fuller description would mention error cases or empty result behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the concept of a pre-colaborador, which clarifies the meaning of idPreColaborador, but does not explicitly discuss where to find the ID or any validation rules. The description adds some context beyond the raw schema.

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 lists documents of a pre-colaborador (candidate in hiring process) with download links. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting this is the only case where the official API exposes documents.

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 this is the only tool for accessing documents, which indirectly tells the agent when to use it. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternative tools, but the 'only case' phrasing provides strong guidance.

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