descrever_metodoDescribe an Ahreas ERP web-service method, showing its service, parameters, data format, and read/write behavior before calling it.
Detalha um método: serviço, parâmetros, formato e se lê ou grava.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nome | Yes | Nome do método, como aparece em listar_metodos. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication or permissions, or whether calling it has any side effects. The phrase 'se lê ou grava' describes the method being inspected, not the behavior of this tool itself.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the key outputs without any wasted words.
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 description is adequate for a simple lookup tool and the output schema covers return values. However, without annotations it should also clarify the tool's own safety profile and usage context relative to siblings, which it does not.
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%, so the single parameter 'nome' is already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or format details for the parameter, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb ('Detalha') and resource ('um método'), and lists the exact aspects returned: serviço, parâmetros, formato, e se lê ou grava. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like listar_metodos and executar_metodo, which list or execute methods rather than describing one.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listar_metodos or executar_metodo. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.