resumo_do_funil

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the aggregate covers (statuses and stage-to-stage conversion rates) but says nothing about read-only behavior, required permissions, filtering/window of the data, or refresh behavior. For an analytics tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is a fragment without an explicit verb, but no words are wasted and the funnel stages are enumerated inline rather than padded out.

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 zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable idea of the subject matter but not the shape of the return (per-status counts, conversion-rate definitions) or the scope of the data. No annotations or output schema exist to fill the gap, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. The description appropriately uses its space to describe the output dimension (funnel stages) instead of parameter syntax.

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 clear resource and content: totals by status and conversion rates for the funnel stages aplicada -> entrevista -> teste técnico -> oferta. An agent can tell it produces aggregate funnel metrics rather than listing records. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling tools that manipulate vagas.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus listar_vagas, vagas_paradas, or atualizar_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that this is a read-only analytics view simply because it takes no arguments.

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