Adicionar seção

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context: the section break creates a new page and respondents advance via a 'Next' button, and positions count all items. However, it does not mention return values, error handling, or mutation specifics beyond 'insere', leaving some gaps for a write operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It includes a behavioral note and a practical tip, with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality, the indexing rule, and a verification tip. It does not describe the return value or error scenarios, but the simplicity of an insert operation and the presence of get_form as a check make this reasonably complete.

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 is 3. The description repeats the index semantics ('As posições contam todos os itens') but this is already in the schema property description. It does not add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Insere uma quebra de seção (nova página) no formulário' (inserts a section break/new page). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_question and add_text_item by specifying 'section break' (quebra de seção) and explains respondent behavior with the 'Próxima' button.

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 implies when to use the tool (to add a section break/page). It also provides a workflow hint: 'confira com get_form' (check with get_form) to verify positions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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