Format Figure

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful behavior – the dynamic default source using the current year and that the output is ready-made snippets in Markdown/LaTeX/Typst – but it never says whether an actual file is written or text is merely returned, whether image_path must exist on disk, or whether the image is validated/embedded.

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?

Front-loaded with the standard and purpose, then four tight bullets covering each output element with no filler. A couple of bullets are compressed to the point of ambiguity (what exactly 'Imagem centralizada com caminho no computador' means for the rendered caption).

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?

With an output schema available, the description needn't describe return values, and it does cover the main behaviors and the three target formats. The remaining gap is operational: nothing says whether the tool mutates a project file or only returns snippet text, which matters for a 5-parameter formatting 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 0%, so the description has to compensate, and it loosely maps all five parameters: caption ('Título'), figure_number ('Figura X'), image_path ('caminho no computador'), target_format (Markdown/LaTeX/Typst) and source ('fonte obrigatória', dynamic default). It still leaves gaps – e.g. that figure_number accepts an integer or a free string, and whether source overrides the dynamic year.

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 and resource ('Formata uma figura/imagem') plus the governing standard (ABNT NBR 14724), and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced (top identification, centered image, mandatory source footer). This clearly separates it from the sibling format_table and the citation-formatting tools without needing the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the ABNT context and the mention of a 'chamada obrigatória no texto' – the agent can infer it is for figures in an academic document, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to an alternative (e.g. format_table for tables, audit_illustrations_and_tables for checking compliance).

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