estruturar_artigo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'sugere' (suggests) a structure, indicating a read-only or generative operation with no side effects. However, it does not clarify whether the structure is saved, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens if no articles exist. The mention of Brazilian academic norms adds context.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the overall function, the second lists the sections, and the third mentions adherence to norms and use of available material. Slight repetition of 'artigos' but overall 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 description explains what the tool does but lacks important details: there is no output schema, so the return format is not described. Prerequisites (having articles registered) are implied but not explicit. Error conditions (e.g., no articles found) are not mentioned. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, more completeness is needed.

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?

All three parameters (tema, objetivo, abordagem) are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds context by listing the sections that will be structured, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. It does not explain how each parameter affects the output. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states that the tool generates a suggested structure for a master's thesis based on registered articles. It lists specific sections (introdução, referencial teórico, etc.) and differentiates from sibling tools like 'comparar_metodologias' or 'gerar_secao' by focusing on overall structure generation.

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 when a master's article structure is needed and articles are registered, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gerar_secao' (which might generate one section in detail) or 'listar_artigos'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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