bncc_mapa_de_foco

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must self-disclose behavior. It describes the tool as querying a dataset and returning prioritized skills, which implies read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe, nor does it mention any authorization or rate limits. Given the tool's nature, the description is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 well-structured: first sentence states the function, second paragraph clarifies scope, and an 'Args' section explains parameters. It is concise with no redundant information, though the second paragraph could be slightly shorter.

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 tool has 3 parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return content (prioritized skills with pedagogical layer), parameter defaults and usage, and coverage limitations. It does not detail return format, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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% (no property descriptions in input schema), so the description provides essential context: examples for 'componente' and 'ano', and the default value for 'limite'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type and title fields, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 returns prioritized skills from the BNCC Focus Map with pedagogical layers. It specifies the covered subjects (Língua Portuguesa, Matemática, Ciências, História, Geografia) and explicitly lists uncovered areas, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bncc_buscar or bncc_listar.

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool by enumerating which subjects and grade levels are covered, and explicitly states what is NOT covered (e.g., Art, Physical Education). It advises that empty parameters return all items. While it doesn't name sibling tools directly, the coverage details help the agent decide if this tool is appropriate.

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