Conferir gabarito

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys non-mutating verification behavior through verbs like 'Confere' and 'auditar', implying a read-only check. However, it does not disclose the return format, potential error conditions, or explicitly guarantee that the form is not modified.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The first sentence explains what it does, the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place without 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 simple verification tool with 2 parameters, the description covers purpose and usage context well. It lacks return-value specification and explicit non-mutation disclosure, but given the simplicity and full schema coverage, it is mostly 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% (both formId and expected have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about comparing against expected answers and points, but it doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already 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 uses the specific verb 'Confere' (checks) with the resource 'gabarito de um quiz', clearly stating the operation. It further explains it verifies correct answers and points per position, distinguishing it from sibling CRUD tools by emphasizing audit/verification.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Útil para auditar um quiz recém-montado antes de divulgar' (useful for auditing a recently assembled quiz before publishing). While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, the context is clear and specific.

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