br__validate_cte_xml

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it validates against a bundled XSD, automatically selects schema version based on signature, and returns a dict with keys valid, errors, warnings, and schema_version. No contradictions.

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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, behavior, and output. It uses a code block for return structure, making it easy to parse. No wasted words.

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 two optional parameters, no required fields, and an output schema implied by the description, the tool definition is complete. It explains validation logic, schema selection, and return format adequately.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond stating that one of the two should be provided, which is already in 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 validates CT-e XML against a specific XSD schema (modelo 57, schema 4.00). It distinguishes itself from sibling validation tools for NFe and NFSe by specifying the CT-e domain.

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 explains schema selection logic based on signature presence, providing context for when the tool applies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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