Pedir reenvio do SMS

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the precondition that the downstream service must allow resending, but says nothing about failure modes, cost implications, rate limits, or whether the original activation state changes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the use condition; there is no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter action with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, the precondition, and when to invoke it. It is nearly sufficient, missing only outcome/failure behavior for a resend request.

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?

Only one parameter (id), and schema description coverage is 100% ('ID da ativacao'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: requesting a fresh SMS from the provider for the same activation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like request_number, wait_for_sms and cancel_activation, though it does not explicitly name any sibling for contrast.

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?

"Use se o primeiro nao chegou" gives a clear triggering condition, and the parenthetical narrows it further to cases where the service permits a resend. No alternative tool is named (e.g. wait_for_sms first), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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