obter_texto_desidentificado

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 discloses the key behavioral constraint that only PASS jobs are accepted and others are blocked, but does not mention safety, authorization, or error handling. The behavior is simple, but some transparency is lacking.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 provides the essential usage rule and constraint. It could mention error handling or prerequisites, but the core purpose and the PASS-state condition are adequately covered.

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 schema has one parameter, job_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description references 'job' indirectly but doesn't explicitly explain job_id's format or meaning. However, the param name is self-explanatory, and the context of job PASS helps infer its purpose.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retorna' (returns) and identifies the resource as the text of a PASS job. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like consultar_job or descartar_job by focusing exclusively on text extraction for PASS jobs.

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 explicitly states that 'outros estados são bloqueados' (other states are blocked), telling the agent when to use the tool: only for PASS jobs. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the exclusion is clear and contextually sufficient given the sibling names.

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