Avaliar Risco de Tratamento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it is a 'simplified risk assessment,' without any information about side effects, required permissions, output format, or state changes. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior safely.

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, focused sentence that directly states the function without any extraneous detail. It is optimally concise and front-loaded, containing no redundant or vague phrases.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a non-trivial input structure. The description only provides a high-level purpose and fails to explain what the risk assessment returns, how results are presented, or any practical usage notes. This leaves a significant gap for the agent to understand the full context of invoking the tool.

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 tool description adds no information about the parameters (descricao and respostas). With only 50% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it remains silent. The nested 'respostas' object is partially self-explanatory through its subfields, but the description does not clarify the overall input structure beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Avaliação simplificada de risco de um tratamento de dados pessoais' clearly states the tool's function: assessing the risk of personal data processing. It uses a specific verb ('avaliar') and resource ('tratamento de dados pessoais'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as 'avaliar_necessidade_pia' or 'checklist_compliance', so it does not achieve the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios. Without this context, an agent cannot determine when this risk assessment is appropriate relative to other compliance tools.

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