selecionar_e_desidentificar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool opens a local selector (suggesting user interaction) and that it does not receive or return file paths, which is useful. However, it lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or what the output schema represents, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 in Portuguese that front-loads the primary action (opens local selector, creates job) and immediately states the key constraint (no file path). Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or excessive detail.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and sibling tools cover the job lifecycle (query, discard, get text), the description sufficiently captures the essential behavior. It could note that the selector is for selecting a file to de-identify, but the name and sibling context fill that gap.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds a clarifying note about not receiving or returning file paths, which reinforces the parameterless interface and prevents potential misuse via file-path arguments.

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 opens the local selector and creates a job, a specific action with a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like consultar_job and descartar_job by focusing on job creation via local selection, and the constraint 'não recebe nem devolve caminho de arquivo' adds specificity.

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 when to use this tool: to create a job by opening a local selector. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the sibling tool names (consultar_job, descartar_job) make the context clear, and the 'não recebe nem devolve caminho de arquivo' note helps set expectations for invocation edge cases.

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