selecionar_e_desidentificar

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 async kickoff pattern (returns job_id rather than completing work) and the side effect of opening localhost. However, it omits important behavioral context: whether prior steps are required (e.g., installation verification), what happens if localhost fails to open, or the nature of the jobs that are created - particularly relevant given the descartar_job sibling exists for cleanup. It's adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the primary action and return value in the first sentence, then delivers the critical follow-up instruction in the second. Every word earns its place, and the Portuguese phrasing is compact. This is an exemplary compact description.

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?

There is an output schema (indicated by has_output_schema: true), which partially covers return values. For a process-initiating tool with no annotations, more context is needed: prerequisites (verificar_instalacao appears to be a sibling that should precede this), failure modes, and the job lifecycle (the agent would benefit from knowing descartar_job can be used to clean up). The next-step polling instruction is helpful, but the initiation flow is under-explained.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by explaining the return contract (job_id) and the required next action (polling), which compensates for the absence of any parameter documentation needs. There is nothing to document for parameters, and the description appropriately focuses on the workflow contract.

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 ('Abre localhost e retorna job_id' - opens localhost and returns job_id), specifying both the verb and resource. It implies differentiation from siblings by establishing this as the job-initiating step, distinct from consultar_job (polling) and descartar_job (cleanup). It could be slightly clearer about the connection to de-identification, but the name carries that context.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to poll consultar_job next ('o agente deve pollar consultar_job em seguida'), giving a clear sequential workflow. However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool, nor does it reference prerequisites like verificar_instalacao, which likely should be checked first given the sibling set. The next-step guidance is strong but the exclusion/prerequisite coverage is incomplete.

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