consultar_job

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 adds useful behavioral context by stating that only state and non-sensitive metrics are returned, making clear it avoids sensitive data. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects (though 'consulta' implies read-only). It provides a baseline but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the exact purpose and scope without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise and easy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers the key behavioral boundary (non-sensitive metrics) and the output schema handles return value documentation. It could mention error cases or prerequisites, but for a straightforward query tool, the provided context is sufficient.

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 only one parameter, job_id, with no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter. It does not. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about the format, origin, or expected value, leaving the agent to infer that job_id is an identifier.

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 action (consulta/query) and the resource (job), with a specific scope (estado e métricas não sensíveis). It is specific enough to understand the tool's role, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like selecionar_e_desidentificar or descartar_job, so it misses the full 'distinguishes from siblings' bar.

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 context: 'somente' (only) suggests this is for non-sensitive queries, and the read-only nature is evident. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or name alternatives (e.g., use obter_texto_desidentificado for sensitive data). The use case is implied but not fully clarified.

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