br__build_access_key

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses that cnf is generated if omitted and that the key is check-digit, but it omits behavioral traits like error handling, idempotency, or prerequisites (e.g., internet access). Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Efficient and clear.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and returns. It could mention the check-digit algorithm or error scenarios, but it is sufficiently complete for a utility tool.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as mentioning check-digit and returned dict. 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 assembles and check-digits a 44-character NF-e/NFC-e access key, specifying the output format (chave_acesso and cnf). This distinguishes it from siblings like br__generate_nfe (generating the full NFe) and validation tools.

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 the tool is for building the access key, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like br__generate_nfe or validation tools. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks clear guidance.

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