gerar_documento_word_juridico

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions clickable sources and visible gates, but does not explain side effects, file creation behavior, overwrite risks, required permissions, or how the harness state is consumed. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence with no filler words, which is efficient and easily parsed. The brevity is a strength, though the cryptic terms 'harness' and 'gates' reduce clarity and force the agent to infer their meaning.

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?

This is a document generation tool with eight parameters and no annotations, so a richer description is needed. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still omits important contextual details: what 'harness' refers to, how 'fatos' should be structured, how the output file is named, and whether existing files are replaced.

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 does not explain any of the eight parameters. Required fields like 'titulo', 'tese', 'fatos', and 'pedido' are only understandable from their names, and optional parameters such as 'lei', 'jurisdicao', 'nome_arquivo', and 'data_referencia' receive no additional meaning.

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 uses a clear verb ('Gera') and identifies the resource ('DOCX formal'), which conveys the tool's core purpose. However, terms like 'harness', 'fontes clicáveis', and 'gates visíveis' are domain jargon that may confuse an agent, and the description does not differentiate this tool from related siblings such as 'gerar_documento_visual_law'.

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 gives no indication of when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'gerar_documento_visual_law', 'preparar_minuta_juridica', or 'redigir_argumento_juridico'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario-based guidance are provided.

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