gerar_secao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior (searches articles, organizes excerpts, returns ABNT citations) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 and well-structured. It leads with the core purpose, then details the process, and ends with an action directive. Each sentence adds value without repetition, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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, the description should ideally describe the return format. It mentions 'já retorna as citações ABNT prontas' but does not detail the structure. The description covers all parameters and usage context, but lacks details on what the agent can expect in the response.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, and the tool description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the purpose of each parameter, such as 'secao' with examples and 'tema_pesquisa' for context. This helps the agent understand how to use them effectively.

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 the tool's purpose: preparing reference material for writing a specific section of an academic paper. It provides concrete examples of section names and explains the automatic search and citation generation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'buscar_nos_artigos' which are more general.

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 advises using it as a starting point for writing each section ('Use como ponto de partida para redigir cada seção'). While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, the guidance is clear and contextually appropriate given the sibling tools.

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