mapa_de_ilhas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose substantial behavior: it produces an image plus a labeled island list (slot, cor, tamanho, centro, altura do topo), defaults objeto to the largest and lists the others, and explains the coordinate system for regiao. It does not state read-only nature or error behavior, but for a visualization tool the disclosure is rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then per-parameter details, then return values. The enumeration of vista values across three languages is slightly verbose but earns its place for an agent picking a view. No wasted phrasing overall.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters at 0% coverage, the description supplies the purpose, all meaningful parameter meanings, defaults, coordinate conventions, and the return payload contents. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing except a trivial note that arquivo is the input file.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does for 4 of 5 parameters: it enumerates vista values in three languages, explains objeto's default and fallback behavior, defines regiao's zoom coordinates in mm per view, and clarifies numeros=False suppresses numbers. Only arquivo (the required file param) is left implicit, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Desenha o objeto com as cores reais e o número de cada ilha' — draws the object with real colors and numbered islands. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like repintar_ilhas (repainting) or inspecionar_3mf, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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 explains parameters and defaults but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as repintar_ilhas or inspecionar_3mf, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the parameter descriptions.

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