validar_tabelas

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists what the tool checks, implying a read-only validation process, but does not explicitly state whether it modifies files, requires special permissions, or what happens on validation failure. The output schema exists, but side effects are unstated, so transparency is moderate.

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 lists all validation checks without unnecessary verbosity. It is concise and to the point, containing no redundant phrases.

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 that an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description provides adequate context about the tool's purpose and the checks it performs, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the scope of validation. Minor gap: it doesn't mention what qualifies as a valid input beyond the file path, but the schema covers that.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters (single 'caminho_arquivo' with a clear description). The tool description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 the tool validates price tables and enumerates specific validation criteria (minimum columns, quantity×unit value, sum closing, monthly coherence, value by extension, and global value comparison). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analisar_conformidade' or 'verificar_numeracao'.

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 does not specify when to use this tool compared to alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. It only describes the action without usage context.

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