Format Table

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose something important: it produces snippets in three markup formats rather than mutating files, implying a pure computation. It does not state whether anything is written to disk, whether an existing table number is validated, or how ABNT source/fonte placement is handled, leaving the mutation profile inferable rather than declared.

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?

Three tight bullets, front-loaded with the normative standard and then the mode decision, with zero filler. Slightly under-informative rather than verbose, but structurally efficient.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be described, and the tool's purpose is clear, but five of six parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. For a formatter whose correctness hinges on 'source' and 'table_number' conventions, an agent cannot reliably call it without guessing.

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% across 6 parameters, yet only 'category' is explained in the description. The ABNT-specific parameters 'source' and 'table_number' — the ones an agent is most likely to misuse, including the allowed integer-or-string duality — get no explanation at all, and title/headers/rows are not characterized either.

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+resource (format data to IBGE/ABNT table norms) and enumerates the exact output formats produced: Markdown, LaTeX booktabs, Typst. It clearly separates the two output modes ('tabela' vs 'quadro'). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling format_figure or from audit_illustrations_and_tables, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 gives real selection guidance for the 'category' enum — numeric/statistical data goes to 'tabela' (open side borders), textual/qualitative data goes to 'quadro' (closed frame). However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool rather than format_figure or the table-auditing sibling, so usage is implied only at the parameter level.

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