generate_cpf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the generation of a valid random CPF and the formatting option, which covers the core behavior. However, it does not mention the return type or any potential edge cases, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, concise sentence that delivers purpose and a parameter hint without any fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It explains the main function and the parameter's effect. The lack of an explicit return format is minor since the tool's purpose implies the return is a CPF string.

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 input schema fully describes the 'formatted' parameter (100% coverage), but the tool description adds a concrete example ('XXX.XXX.XXX-XX') that clarifies the visual output beyond the schema's generic 'Retornar com pontuação'. This extra context enhances parameter understanding.

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 a specific action ('Gera') and resource ('CPF válido aleatório'), distinguishing it from siblings like validate_cpf and generate_cnpj. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint ('Use formatted=true') is about parameter formatting, not about tool selection.

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