verificar_instalacao

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one meaningful behavioral detail ('sem abrir documentos' / without opening documents), but it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or whether it requires any local setup, network access, or permissions. The output schema exists, but return behavior is not described in the text.

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 verb, the qualifier, and the target resource in a clear order. There is no wordiness, and every word contributes meaning ('Verifica', 'sem abrir documentos', 'se o processamento local está disponível').

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 simple check tool with zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does and adds a key differentiator (no document opening), which covers the essential usage context. No additional information seems necessary for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. The schema coverage is 100% by definition, and the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but that is acceptable here since there are none.

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 a specific action ('Verifica' / checks) and a specific resource ('se o processamento local está disponível' / if local processing is available), plus a key qualifier ('sem abrir documentos' / without opening documents). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on documents or jobs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'sem abrir documentos' implies this is a lightweight pre-check to verify availability before using document-processing tools, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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