novacrm_get_automation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the result (condition, action, execution statistics) and, via "Obtém", implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about permission requirements or what happens when the ID does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, key, and returned fields in that order. Nothing is redundant and nothing obvious is padded in.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers identification and return contents, which is nearly everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Only edge-case behavior (not-found, permissions) is absent.

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 coverage is 100% — the single `id` parameter is documented as "ID da automação" — so the schema already does the parameter work. The description's "pelo ID" merely restates it and adds no format, source, or validation detail, matching the baseline 3 for a fully covered schema.

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?

States a specific verb ("Obtém"), resource ("regra de automação") and lookup key ("pelo ID"), and even previews the payload (condição, ação, estatísticas de execução). This clearly separates it from novacrm_list_automations and the create/update/delete siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use is implied: fetch a single automation when you already have its ID. There is no explicit guidance on where the ID comes from (e.g., novacrm_list_automations) nor any note about when to prefer listing instead, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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