sugerir_correcoes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. It clearly discloses that the tool returns the note with inline annotations, each problem marked as a line '<<AVISO: ...>>' below the section, and explicitly states it does not rewrite the original text. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but for a simple transformation tool, this is solid.

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 concise and well-structured: a first sentence stating the core behavior, a second sentence detailing the output format and non-rewriting guarantee, and a brief Args line. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately explains the output format (the inline <<AVISO>> annotations) and the main behavior. It does not mention edge cases like no corrections, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 no description for the parameter (coverage 0%), but the description includes an Args section that fully explains 'texto_nota' as 'a nota completa a ser anotada'. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, making the parameter's purpose clear and complete.

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 states a clear verb ('Devolve a nota com anotações inline') and a specific resource (the nota), and explicitly clarifies that it does NOT rewrite the original text. This distinguishes it from an editing tool and is consistent with its name, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies its use case (suggesting corrections for the doctor to decide) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over the sibling 'validar_nota_soap' or when not to use it. The context suggests it is for corrective suggestions rather than validation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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