exportar_documento

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It covers default file opening, automatic formatting (A4, Times 12, justified, black titles), accent handling in file names, markdown duplication avoidance, and supported markdown elements. This provides good insight into the tool's behavior.

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 paragraph but is dense with useful information without being overly long. It could be structured more clearly, but it effectively communicates the main action and key details upfront.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context: what it does, where it saves, default behavior, formatting, and markdown support. It lacks details on error handling or return values, but for a conversion tool, it is fairly 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?

Although the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the tool description adds significant meaning for 'titulo' (pass with normal accents, file name generated without them) and 'conteudo_markdown' (supports markdown, no duplication if starts with #, lists, bold/italic, tables, quotes). For 'abrir', it mentions the default is true. For 'case_id', it is only implied in the path. Overall, the description compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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 converts a report/minuta/pacote to DOCX format, saves it in the exports/ folder within the case directory, and by default opens the file. It specifies the output format, location, and formatting details, distinguishing it from siblings that only open files or perform other actions.

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 indicates that final deliverables for the end user should be produced using this tool, and not left as loose files in a temporary folder. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings, the context is clear enough for appropriate usage.

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