Solicitar diagnóstico de IA

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the queue/enqueue nature, that generation is asynchronous and must be polled, the AI_ENABLED feature-flag gate, and the explicit confirm requirement. What it does not disclose is whether repeated calls spawn duplicate jobs or how long the job takes — a meaningful gap given idempotentHint=false, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the async caveat, then the two hard preconditions. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct operational 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?

With no output schema, an enqueue tool should tell the agent what it gets back — presumably an identifier or status to pass to get_ai_diagnosis — and it does not. The async workflow and gating are covered, but that return-value gap plus the unexplained model/voice parameters leave it short of complete for a 5-parameter mutation 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 carries the burden: it anchors 'period' and 'provider' and adds a real constraint on 'confirm' (must be true even though it is optional in the schema). However, 'model' and 'voice' — including the five voice enum options — are never explained, so half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource in 'Enfileira um diagnóstico financeiro', scoping it to a period and a chosen provider. It also implicitly separates itself from the read counterpart by naming get_ai_diagnosis as the polling tool, so an agent can pick between creation and retrieval without inspecting schemas.

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 gives concrete preconditions ('Requer AI_ENABLED=true', 'Exige confirm: true') and routes the agent to get_ai_diagnosis for results, which is real when/how guidance. It does not say when to avoid this tool or how it relates to cancel_ai_diagnosis / list_ai_diagnoses, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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