resumir_paper

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

Even with no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the summary is based only on the abstract, it is generated by a local LLM, results are cached so the same paper is not summarized twice, and papers without an abstract yield a clear error rather than an invented summary. This gives the agent a reliable model of the tool's side effects and edge cases.

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 three dense sentences plus a one-line parameter note. Every sentence earns its place: output structure, input source, caching behavior, error handling, and parameter provenance. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers what is produced, where the input comes from, how the tool behaves, and what happens in the failure case. The presence of an output schema means the description does not need to detail the return shape, and nothing else needed for correct invocation 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 input schema only lists paper_id as a string with no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that paper_id is the key returned by buscar_papers_novos and is generally a DOI, which provides essential provenance and format semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Resumo estruturado de um paper: problema, método, achado e relevância', which names the resource (a paper) and the specific structured output. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling buscar_papers_novos, which is about finding new papers rather than summarizing one.

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 Args section states that paper_id is 'a chave devolvida por buscar_papers_novos', which tells an agent this tool should be invoked on results from the sibling search tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the single-sibling context and clear input provenance make the usage situation clear enough.

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