ler_spec

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the important coupling – the returned format is exactly what write tools expect and what `ler_pagina` emits – which is genuine context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about whether the content is static, cacheable, or versioned, and the read-only nature is only implied by the name.

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 short sentences, with the resource statement leading and the imperative usage cue following. The parenthetical acronym expansion adds necessary meaning rather than padding. Tight and front-loaded, with no wasted clauses.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation in the description, and the parameter-less schema is fully covered. The description supplies the one thing an agent needs beyond structure: the read-before-first-write sequencing relative to the sibling write tools. Adequate for a simple documentation-fetch 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The schema is trivially complete and no parameter explanation is needed.

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 identifies the resource concretely – the ONMD (OneNote markdown) format spec – and ties it to `ler_pagina` (which returns it) and the write tools (which accept it). Combined with the name `ler_spec`, the agent understands this returns a format documentation document, distinct from the page-operating siblings. The framing is slightly indirect (it describes the content rather than saying 'returns the spec'), keeping it below a 5.

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?

'Leia antes da primeira escrita' gives explicit lifecycle guidance: read this before performing any write. It implicitly identifies the write-tool siblings as the context where this prerequisite applies. It doesn't state when *not* to use it or how often it must be re-read, so it falls short of a full 5.

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