obter_texto_para_revisao

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the return format (segments with item numbers) and how to use them, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. However, as a retrieval tool, the description's lack of modification claims implies safe behavior, and it gives substantial context about the return values.

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 lengthy but each sentence contributes essential information about the workflow, return format, and error-handling instructions. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more succinct by omitting some explanatory examples.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (segments with an 'item' field) and explains how the data relates to the next step in the process. It also references the 'chave_analise' parameter's origin, providing sufficient context for the tool's role in the broader workflow.

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?

All three parameters (inicio, limite, chave_analise) have clear, specific descriptions in the schema, fully covering their meaning and purpose. The tool description does not need to add further explanation, as the schema already provides complete information.

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 function: it returns segmented text from a document for review. It situates itself as 'Passo 2 de 3', distinguishing its role in a multi-step process and specifying the resource (document text) it operates on.

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 instructions: it tells the user to read each segment, identify errors, and then copy exact excerpts for the subsequent review tool. It also indicates the workflow sequence ('Passo 2 de 3'), making the when-to-use context clear.

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