fluig_process_error_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the tool passes through fluig_db_query, which persists a dataset on the server, and that env="prod" requires confirm=true. That side-effect warning is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs. It stops short of describing the return shape, but the critical write-side effect is covered.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, diagnostic trigger, then the safety warning, in three tight sentences with no filler. Slightly packed, but every sentence earns its place.

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 3-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers what it does, when to reach for it, and the prod write/confirm caveat. Return format is unspecified but a reasonable agent can call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the env/confirm descriptions in the schema are already rich. The description restates the prod-confirm requirement rather than adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: forensic of a stuck request — what the engine tried to execute and with what payload, naming the underlying PROCES_WORKFLOW_ERROR_LOG table. An agent clearly knows this is the error-log forensics tool. It hints at ordering ("primeira parada") but does not name specific siblings like fluig_process_history to distinguish itself.

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?

"É a primeira parada quando uma solicitação 'sumiu' ou parou sem explicação" gives a concrete when-to-use trigger. No explicit when-not or named alternatives, but the diagnostic scenario is clear enough to route correctly.

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