classificar_entrada

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful context by specifying that it moves a loose file from the input folder to a teacher-specified topic, but it does not cover permissions, overwrite behavior, or side effects.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words, though it is too terse to be fully informative for a 3-parameter tool.

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 mutating 3-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It omits the semestre parameter entirely, provides no usage conditions, and adds little behavioral detail beyond what annotations already imply.

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 there are 3 required parameters. The description references arquivo and tópico loosely but omits semestre entirely and provides no format, constraints, or meaning for any parameter beyond natural-language names.

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?

States a specific verb (Move) and resource (a loose file from the input folder to the teacher-specified topic). The action is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like pasta_entrada or contexto_topico, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied from the operation itself, leaving the agent to infer the correct context.

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