gerar_boleto

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose whether generating a boleto has side effects (e.g., issuing a payment slip, modifying status), what the output format is, or whether it is idempotent. This leaves uncertainty about side effects and safety.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action ('Gera') and the object ('boleto'), making it very concise.

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?

With two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the short description is insufficient. It lacks details about expected return values, parameter selection, and the tool's place in the boleto lifecycle relative to siblings like 'obter_boleto' and 'cancelar_boleto'.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for 'codigo_titulo' or 'codigo_titulo_integracao'. It is unclear which identifier to use or if they are alternatives, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the target title.

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 states a specific action: 'Gera o boleto' (generates the boleto) for 'um título de contas a receber já existente' (an existing accounts receivable title). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'obter_boleto' (which retrieves a boleto) and 'gerar_pix' (which generates a different payment method).

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 phrase 'já existente' gives an implicit constraint that the title must already exist, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'obter_boleto' or 'cancelar_boleto'. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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