Gerar Política de Privacidade

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'assists in structuring a privacy policy' without revealing any side effects, output format, permissions, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is similar to the mid-tier example where mutation tools lacking behavioral details scored 2.

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 with no fluff, front-loading the key purpose. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys, though 'Auxilia' could be more direct. There is no wasted wording, earning a strong score for conciseness.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about what the tool produces and how it behaves. It only states 'assists in structuring a privacy policy', leaving out details about the generated output, any constraints, or the overall workflow. This is insufficient for a moderately complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. All seven parameters (e.g., nome_empresa, finalidades, base_legal) are well-described in the schema, so no information is lost, but the description itself contributes no additional semantic value.

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 identifies the tool as assisting in structuring a privacy policy according to LGPD, which distinguishes it from siblings like gerar_modelo_consentimento or validar_base_legal. The verb 'Auxilia na estruturação' is specific enough, though slightly softer than the title 'Gerar'. Overall, it clearly states the primary 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making information.

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