resumir_conduta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: it always returns the literal citation, states whether the citation was found, includes the PDF link, and clarifies it is reading aid, not a substitute. This is substantial transparency for a read-only summarization tool.

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 with a clear purpose statement, an explanatory paragraph, and an Args list. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. The structure aids scanning.

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's simplicity (2 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (citation, found flag, link), its limitation (not a substitute), and the workflow (uses id from sibling). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema provides zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: pcdt_id is explained as 'identificador devolvido por consultar_protocolo', and contexto_clinico is defined with an example. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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's purpose: 'Resume a conduta de um PCDT para um contexto clínico específico' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling by explicitly contrasting with returning the whole protocol ('Em vez de devolver o protocolo inteiro'), making the differentiation clear.

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 explains the intended use case: it extracts the part relevant to a specific clinical context, not the full protocol. It implies that pcdt_id should come from consultar_protocolo, giving a workflow hint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative tool directly, though the contrast is implicit.

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