gerar_uuid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing beyond the basic action. Calling the result 'único' is also imprecise when the schema permits up to 10 UUIDs, and nothing is said about randomness, version semantics, or that v1 may embed time/MAC data.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple utility. It is arguably too terse rather than wasteful, but there is nothing to trim.

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?

For a small no-annotation utility this is nearly adequate, but since 'quantidade' can exceed 1, the return shape (single string vs array) is left unspecified and there is no output schema to fall back on. That gap matters for correct downstream handling.

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 100%, with both the 'versao' enum and the 1–10 'quantidade' bound documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gera um UUID'), so the agent immediately knows this produces UUIDs. It does not need sibling differentiation since no other sibling generates identifiers, but it omits that versions and batch quantities are supported.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool, when v1 vs v4 matters, or any prerequisite context. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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