fluig_rm_query

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

The description declares read-only behavior, but lacks details on potential side effects, error modes, rate limits, or return format. With no annotations, it partially meets the transparency burden.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and add a constraint on column declaration. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the explanation of parameters and the read-only nature covers the core usage. However, the 'params' object could be more detailed, and error handling or defaults are omitted.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining branch as CODCOLIGADA, application as CODAPLICACAO, and specifying that fields are required columns. This goes beyond the schema.

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 queries TOTVS RM via stored-SQL bridge, requiring a statement code, branch, and application. It specifies the resource and action effectively, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fluig_db_query.

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 mentions 'Read-only' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fluig_db_query, fluig_rest_get). Usage context is implied but not detailed.

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