analisar_conformidade

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly states that Portuguese review is NOT performed herehare, and that outputs will include counts of segments awaiting review. It also discloses the side effect of generating reports only when `formatos` is passed.Title The description does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects on files, but the core non-obvious behaviors (no textual review, report generation only if formatos passed) are covered. Slight gap on output format details, but not critical given the output schema exists.

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?

Description is a well-structured 3-sentence paragraph with a clear lead sentence defining purpose, followed by a behavioral disclaimer and usage guidance. It front-loads the most critical info. Slightly verbose for the content, but each sentence earns its place. The Portuguese text is compact and direct.

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's complexity (11 parameters, 3-step workflow, output schema exists), the description covers the key workflow context, non-obvious behavior, and conditional usage. It does not explain every parameter's interaction, but the schema and output schema compensate. The description effectively completes the picture for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could mention that `caminho_arquivo` is only for local execution (but the schema already says that).

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 100% (all 11 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context about `formatos` (only pass if skipping textual review) and clarifies that `revisar_texto` is the flag for deterministic review. However, it doesn't elaborate on other params beyond what the schema says (e.g., `conteudo_base64` vs `caminho_arquivo` trade-offs). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already covers semantics.

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?

Description states specific verb+resource ('Roda a análise determinística do PB/TR') and lists exact checks (checklist normativo, numeração hierárquica, aritmética das tabelas, valores declarados, regras determinísticas de revisão textual). Clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the next steps and alternative tools. The 'Passo 1 de 3' prefix frames its position in the workflow.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (first of 3 steps for PB/TR) and when not (says to proceed to `obter_texto_para_revisao` and `registrar_revisao_textual` for reports). Also gives conditional guidance: only pass `formatos` if skipping textual review. Provides clear alternative tool names, making it easy for the agent to route correctly.

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