encerrar_chat_cap1g

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details: it closes the window and writes a transcript with a sidecar SHA-256 hash, going beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like data loss or whether the transcript is persistent. Since annotations cover the core destructive nature, the added context earns a mid score.

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 sentence, efficiently listing the primary action and two key side effects. It is concise without unnecessary fluff. It front-loads the core action and follows with consequences, which is well structured.

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 that the tool has an output schema (though not provided) and annotations covering safety, the description covers the main behavior. However, it omits critical details like whether the chat must be in a particular state, the meaning of the reference, and potential failure modes. Since it is a destructive operation with one parameter, more context might be needed for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'referencia_chat'. The description doesn't explain what the reference is or how to format it. The schema only provides the name and type, leaving the semantic meaning ambiguous. Since there is only one parameter, a baseline of 3 seems harsh, but the description adds no value for the parameter.

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 action ('encerrar a conversa'), the resource (chat), and additional effects (closes window, saves transcript with sidecar SHA-256). It distinguishes from siblings like 'enviar_mensagem_chat_cap1g' and 'aguardar_resposta_chat_cap1g' by focusing on termination. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus others, such as after receiving the final response or before reading. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like whether a chat must be active or whether the reference must be valid. The description implies use for closing, but no explicit context or exclusions.

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