monitorar_novas_resolucoes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no results are found. While the tool is clearly a read operation, the description lacks explicit transparency about its behavior.

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 exceptionally concise, with the purpose in a single sentence and parameter details in two bullet points. It is front-loaded with the core function, contains no fluff, and every sentence earns its place.

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, two parameters are fully documented, and an output schema exists (not shown), so return values need not be explained. The description covers the tool's core behavior and filtering logic, though it omits edge cases like empty results or access requirements. It is nearly complete for a monitoring 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'dias' as the window size in days from today, and 'filtrar_tema' as a filter for configured themes (IA, telemedicina, prontuário eletrônico, algoritmo). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 monitors CFM resolutions published in recent days, with a specific verb ('monitorar') and resource ('novas resoluções'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by focusing on recent/new items rather than a specific query, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling consultar_resolucao_cfm. The description gives parameter details but no explicit context for selecting this tool over alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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