verificar_numeracao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only (only verifies) and lists the specific checks performed, which is good. However, it does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., error messages, partial results) or whether it returns a report or just a boolean. The description is transparent about scope but lacks detail on output behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the specific checks. It is efficient with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It clearly defines the scope of verification. However, it could benefit from a brief note on the output format or how results are returned, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this need. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'caminho_arquivo', which is described as 'Caminho do PDF/DOCX do PB/TR.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify file format constraints or path requirements beyond the schema.

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 specific purpose: verifying hierarchical numbering of items (gaps, duplicities, orphan subitems, out-of-order items, and missing mandatory sections). It uses a specific verb ('verifica') and resource ('numeração hierárquica dos itens'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'validar_tabelas' and 'revisar_ortografia' by focusing solely on numbering.

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 implies when to use this tool (when checking numbering issues) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It doesn't contrast with sibling tools like 'analisar_conformidade' or 'validar_tabelas', so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description.

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