parse_boleto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the failure behavior for invalid lines and lists the extracted fields, which is useful transparency. It could add more detail about input normalization or output format, but for a simple parse, this is adequate.

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 front-loads the core action and ends with error handling. Every phrase earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly concise and 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential fields (bank code, amount, due date) and error behavior. It could be more explicit about the return structure (e.g., object keys), but the clarity of extracted fields makes it complete enough for a simple parse 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% for the only parameter 'linha_digitavel', which is documented as a 47-digit line with or without punctuation. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 extracts bank code, amount (R$), and due date from the digitizable line of a boleto. This specific verb+resource+output set distinguishes it from sibling validate_boleto, which presumably only validates.

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 usage for extracting boleto fields via 'Extrai', but does not explicitly mention alternatives like validate_boleto or explain when to prefer this tool over validation. The error behavior ('Falha com mensagem clara se a linha for inválida') hints that validation might be separate, but no clear when/when-not guidance is given.

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