gerar_relatorio

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description discloses the crucial behavioral trait that this tool does NOT reprocess the document, setting proper expectations for cost and side effects. It also conveys the session-dependency behavior (analysis must already exist). However, it doesn't disclose error behavior or environment-specific limitations beyond what's in the schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded, information-dense sentence with zero wasted words. Every clause earns its place: the verb, the resource, the session constraint, and the non-reprocessing caveat. Perfectly sized.

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 format-rendering tool of moderate complexity, the description plus the output schema and well-covered input schema form a complete picture. The dependency chain (requires a key from analisar_conformidade) is captured in the schema, and the key behavioral constraint is in the description. Only minor gaps exist, such as failure modes when no session analysis exists or format-specific dependencies.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail itself, but the schema already documents each parameter well, including the provenance of chave_analise ('Chave devolvida por analisar_conformidade') and the remote-server hint for retornar_conteudo. The description appropriately relies on the schema here.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction ('Renderiza em outro formato uma análise já executada nesta sessão') that clearly distinguishes it from its analytical siblings. The phrase 'sem reprocessar o documento' differentiates it from the analysis tools listed as siblings, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: after an analysis has been run, as a rendering step rather than a processing step. The 'já executada nesta sessão' constraint provides clear context about prerequisites, though the description doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions for scenarios like invalid session keys.

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