Guia da etapa

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 helpfully discloses the returned sections and the fallback behavior when 'jogo' is absent, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, caching, or error behavior for an invalid etapa value.

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, zero filler, with the primary purpose and returned contents front-loaded before the optional-parameter nuance. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only content tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned structure and the fallback case well. Only the absence of guidance on invalid etapa values or error handling keeps it from being fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: omitting the optional 'jogo' yields a generic guide, which the schema's one-line 'Nome ou identificador (slug) do jogo' does not convey. It does not extend the meaning of 'etapa' beyond the schema's enumerated list.

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?

States a specific verb (devolve) and resource (roteiro de uma etapa) and enumerates the payload an agent will get: objetivo, perguntas, campos, dicas, skills. It is clearly a content-retrieval tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like listar_etapas or status_jogo.

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 sentence about omitting 'jogo' implies when the generic guide applies, giving some conditional context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus listar_etapas, salvar_etapa, or recomendar_skills, so routing is left to inference.

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