planejar_conversao

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: nothing is written to disk, and filaments absent from the map are not an error but are auto-assigned by closest color. It stops short of describing the exact response shape or failure modes (e.g. bad file path).

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose and the no-write guarantee, followed by the map format and the fallback rule. Every line carries information; only the 'mapa força slots' phrasing is slightly dense.

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 2-parameter preview tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, non-mutation, map syntax and fallback behavior. It leaves the required 'arquivo' parameter and the returned structure under-specified, which is a real gap given no output schema exists.

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. It does this well for 'mapa', giving the exact key/value meaning and a concrete example ({'1': 3, '2': 1}) that the bare schema cannot convey. The required parameter 'arquivo' is never explained at all — no path format, extension, or expected file type.

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 and result: it shows which ACE slot each model color will map to, and adds 'sem gravar nada' so the agent knows this is a preview rather than an action. It is distinguishable from siblings like converter_3mf or alterar_slot_ace, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'sem gravar nada' implies this is the dry-run step to use before an actual conversion, which gives an implicit when-to-use signal. However, it never explicitly says to call this before converter_3mf, nor when ver_ace or mapa_de_ilhas would be the better choice.

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