gerar_identidade_visual_proposta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns HTML fragments (cabecalho_html, corpo_html, rodape_html) ready for 'salvar_modelo_proposta'. It also explains the behavior of 'incluir_bloco_produtos' (leaves a marker for later insertion). It mentions that logo_url must be a public URL. However, it does not mention whether the tool has side effects or requires specific permissions. Overall, strong disclosure but could be more explicit about non-destructiveness.

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 well-structured with a clear header, a 'NOVO' note highlighting the use case, a 'Parâmetros:' section with each parameter explained, and a 'Retorna' line. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy: the 'NOVO' note could be integrated more concisely. Overall, efficient for the information density.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good context: it explains the tool's role in the workflow, when to use it, and how the output integrates with other tools. It explains the return structure explicitly. However, it misses parameter explanations for two parameters (one required), and does not mention any error conditions or validation. For a tool generating HTML, it could also mention how the CSS is embedded. Still, it is largely complete.

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. The 'Parâmetros:' section explains 6 of 8 parameters: cor_primaria, cor_secundaria, logo_url, secoes, rodape_texto, incluir_bloco_produtos. However, it does not explain 'nome_empresa' (a required parameter) or 'fonte' (optional but with a default). This is a significant gap for a required field, leaving the agent without crucial context. The explanations provided are clear and include defaults and usage nuances, so partial compensation.

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's purpose: 'Gerar HTML de cabeçalho/corpo/rodapé para um modelo de PVD'. It is specific about the resource (modelo de PVD) and action (gerar HTML). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by referencing 'montar_bloco_produtos_proposta' and 'salvar_modelo_proposta', making it clear this is a component in a larger workflow.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'use esta tool DEPOIS de extrair, desses arquivos, um brief estruturado'. It also advises against guessing colors/fonts without a source ('Não adivinhe cor/fonte/logo sem uma fonte'), and tells the agent to document the origin of each value. This clearly separates usage from alternative approaches.

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