revisar_ortografia

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool only applies deterministic rules and that the output is segmented text for the user to review, which is useful. Yet it omits details about edge cases, how the 'limite' parameter behaves, or error handling, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary details or repetition, 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 existence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It explains the workflow and the user's role clearly. However, it lacks explicit information about error handling or file input constraints, which prevents a perfect score.

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 are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. It does add value by mentioning the 'texto_para_revisao' output and implying that incluir_texto controls the segmented text, but for parameters like limite it adds nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 the tool applies deterministic review rules and returns segmented text. It distinguishes itself from siblings like obter_texto_para_revisao by specifying it handles deterministic checks and that the actual Portuguese proofreading is left to the user, making its purpose precise and unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear usage context by telling the agent that the real Portuguese revision is its responsibility ('A revisão de português propriamente dita é sua') and instructing it to read the returned segments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it falls short of a full 5.

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