consultar_checklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'consulta' (query), which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that it has no side effects or describe other behavioral aspects (e.g., whether it reads from a file, requires permissions, or has rate limits). The output schema is provided, so return value structure is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core function and a practical use case. It is concise, direct, and free of redundant content, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 simplicity (four optional filters), the presence of an output schema, and the clear purpose statement, the description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. It does not omit critical information like return value details because the output schema handles that. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state how the filters interact, but that is covered by the schema descriptions. Overall, it is complete for its purpose.

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 already describes all four parameters thoroughly (secao, arquivo, severidade, aplicabilidade) with usage examples in the descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but does not go beyond what the schema already explains.

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's purpose: it consults the rules of the [TI] script used in the analysis (specific verb 'consulta' + resource 'regras do roteiro [TI]'). It also adds a use case (explaining requirements to the user), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like analisar_conformidade or gerar_relatorio. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 provides a clear use case ('útil para explicar ao usuário o que é exigido'), which implies when to use it: when explaining checklist requirements to a user. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or specify when not to use it. There is no mention of using a different tool instead, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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