indexar_semantica

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency, BYOK, and an explicit Gemini call cap, but does not cover authorization needs, error handling, or effects on existing data. Partial transparency is present.

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, no redundancy: first sentence states purpose and scope, second explains key behavioral traits (opt-in, cap, idempotency). Every word adds value.

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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity (external API, idempotency, cap), the description lacks return value information, error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., key setup). Gaps remain for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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% and the description adds minimal parameter context. 'max_calls' is hinted via 'teto explícito de chamadas Gemini', but 'case_id' is not explained at all. The description fails to clarify what these parameters represent or their format.

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 generates local embeddings for meaning-based search, using specific verb 'gera' and resource 'embeddings locais'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., 'analisar_caso_civel') by focusing on indexing rather than analysis or navigation.

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 implies usage for semantic indexing with opt-in and a call cap, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'buscar_no_processo' or when not to use it. The idempotency hint is useful but guidance is implicit.

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