fichar_artigo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It explains the tool extracts text and returns a structured output listing specific elements, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., file access), performance characteristics, or whether it modifies state.

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 main action and lists the output components concisely. It avoids repetition and unnecessary details, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's functionality and the structure of the returned fichamento. It lists all major output sections (ABNT reference, abstract, objective, etc.), which is sufficient for understanding what to expect.

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?

The only parameter 'arquivo' has a clear description in the schema ('Nome do arquivo PDF ou ID do artigo cadastrado'), and the tool description reinforces that it expects a PDF file or registered article ID. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal additional value beyond the schema.

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 it extracts text from an article and organizes it into a structured fichamento format, including specific components like ABNT reference, abstract, objective, methodology, results, conclusions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'extrair_pdf' (simple extraction) or 'extrair_citacao' (extract citation only).

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 full structured fichamento is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for simple extraction or when only a citation is needed) or mention alternatives like 'extrair_pdf' or 'estruturar_artigo'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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