Checklist de Conformidade

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Gera' (generates), which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or output format. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects or result structure.

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 sentence that starts with the action verb 'Gera', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. There is no redundant information or overly long explanation. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 parameter coverage and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scenario input. However, it does not explain what the compliance checklist includes or how the 'ambito' option affects the output, which would be helpful for the agent. Still, this is a minor gap for a straightforward generator.

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?

Both parameters ('cenario' and 'ambito') have complete descriptions in the schema, covering 100% of the parameter space. The description's mention of 'cenário específico' aligns with the 'cenario' parameter but adds no new semantic detail. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Gera' (generates) and names the resource 'checklist de conformidade LGPD', scoped to 'um cenário específico'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'gerar_modelo_consentimento' or 'validar_base_legal', which have distinct outputs. It fully states the tool's function.

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 the other LGPD compliance tools. It simply states that it generates a checklist without mentioning scenarios where it's preferred or exclusions. Sibling tools exist, but no alternatives or distinctions are offered.

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