retomar_ingestao

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'sem repetir trabalho ja feito' (without repeating already done work), which implies idempotent or incremental behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifying, or its safety profile.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and usage conditions efficiently. However, it could be structured to include parameter information without adding length.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key usage scenarios but lacks explanation of the parameter's role and what the tool returns or does upon completion. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'case_id' with no description. The tool description does not mention this parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 resumes local ingestion without repeating already done work, and specifies the scenarios for use. The verb 'retomar' (resume) and resource 'ingestao local' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'autorizar_ocr' or 'criar_caso_local'.

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 gives explicit conditions for when to use the tool: after client restart, when the Gemini key exists, or after authorizing OCR. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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