anotar_achado

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses persistence across sessions, validation of evidence IDs against an index, and the nature of the fact as a short phrase. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are well 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives usage guidance. The description is front-loaded and each sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains the action, its persistence, validation, and when to use. It lacks details on return values or error conditions, but for a recording tool, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to make informed decisions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'achado' as a short phrase and 'evidence_ids' as array of IDs validated against an index. 'case_id' is not elaborated but is standard in context. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema but could specify constraints more fully.

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 it records a fact (achado) with evidence IDs into a persistent dossier for a case. The phrase 'o dossiê sobrevive à compactação da conversa e a novas sessões' differentiates it from ephemeral conversation tools. It also mentions validation against an index, providing specific verb and resource.

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 explicitly advises using during long investigations because the dossier survives conversation compression and new sessions, giving clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the guidance is effective.

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