descrever_rotinaDescribes a WinThor routine by its code and clearly states whether it can be executed, providing routine details and execution availability.
Detalha uma rotina e diz, com todas as letras, se dá para executá-la.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codigo | Yes | Código da rotina, como aparece no WinThor. |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful fact that the tool explicitly states whether the routine can be executed. However, it does not mention read-only status, error handling, or any side effects. The description is minimal but not contradictory.
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, concise sentence that immediately conveys both the action and the key behavioral output. There is no fluff or redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and the critical executability check. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., non-existent routine) but these are likely covered by the output schema. Adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 parameter 'codigo' is described as 'Código da rotina, como aparece no WinThor', which is clear. The description adds no further parameter context, so baseline 3 applies since the schema already documents it.
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 'Detalha uma rotina e diz, com todas as letras, se dá para executá-la' clearly states the verb (detail) and resource (routine) and adds the specific behavior of stating executability. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like listar_rotinas or diagnostico, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 implies usage: given a routine code, it describes and tells executability. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over listar_rotinas (listing routines) or executar_operacao_winthor (executing), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.