Executar Acao Tela

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the HTTP mechanism, the read/write safety split, the required confirmation flag, and the environment permission gate. It stops short of covering failure behavior or side effects beyond the write gate, so not a 5.

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?

Two compact, front-loaded sentences: the action is stated first, then the read/write rules. Nothing is padded, though the safety clause is dense enough that it reads as slightly compressed rather than a clean 5.

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 screen-automation tool with no annotations, an output schema present, and 4 fully documented params, the description supplies the critical missing layer: the write-authorization gate. An agent has enough to invoke it safely; only error/return nuance is absent, and the output schema covers returns.

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 caminho, acao, campos, and confirmar are already documented; the description's 'preenche os campos e dispara o botão' and the confirmar rule largely restate the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a concrete verb and mechanism: 'Aciona uma tela: preenche os campos e dispara o botão, por HTTP', which tells an agent exactly what happens. It implies the screen-vs-method distinction held by sibling executar_metodo, but never names or contrasts with any sibling explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

It clearly partitions usage: read queries run directly, while mutating actions require confirmar=true plus the AHREAS_PERMITIR_ESCRITA flag, and it adds a workflow instruction to show the user what will run first. That is strong when/when-not guidance, though it doesn't name an alternative tool or say what to do for other cases.

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