extrair_estrutura

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool produces a diagnosis of extraction quality, listing sections/tables/context, and implicitly suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not mention whether it modifies anything, requires permissions, or has any side effects, leaving moderate ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and usage context in the second. There is zero redundant wording or repetition of schema details, making it highly efficient.

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 an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained) and only two parameters (both documented), the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. It could add a bit more detail about expected output or limitations, but it is sufficiently complete for a diagnostic tool of this simplicity.

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 100% coverage for both parameters (caminho_arquivo and incluir_texto), providing clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs 'Diagnóstico de extração' for numbered sections, tables, and inferred context. While the verb is nominal rather than active, the corresponding tool name 'extrair_estrutura' clarifies the action, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like verificar_numeracao and validar_tabelas by focusing on a broader diagnostic scope.

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 explicit usage timing: 'Use antes da análise quando houver suspeita de PDF digitalizado.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool (before analysis, suspected scanned PDF). It does not mention what to use instead in other scenarios, so it stops short of a full when/where-not/alternative specification.

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