Gerar Modelo de Consentimento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the tool 'generates' a consent model, which implies a non-destructive action, but it fails to describe output format, side effects, or any other behavioral traits. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the action (Gera) and resource. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 five parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the generated model looks like, how inputs influence the output, or any important context about the legal basis. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics, but the LGPD Art. 8 reference adds some contextual meaning by implying the parameters align with legal requirements for consent forms. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 function with a specific verb ('Gera') and resource ('modelo de termo de consentimento'), and adds legal specificity ('conforme LGPD (Art. 8º)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'gerar_politica_privacidade', which generates a different legal document.

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 implies the tool is used when a consent term model is needed, but it does not provide explicit usage context, exclusions, or references to alternative tools. No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'validar_base_legal' or 'verificar_consentimento'.

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