contexto_topico

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the downstream intent (feeding the Relato) and discloses nothing about return content, scope limits, or whether data beyond the semester/topic is touched.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the enumerated topic values. No waste, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 read-only retrieval tool with two required params, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the return shape, semester format, and relationship to downstream report tools unexplained. It is too thin to call the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema documents neither parameter. The description compensates meaningfully for 'topico' by enumerating its allowed values (apoio_ensino, ... gestao), which the schema lacks as an enum, but it says nothing about 'semestre' or its expected format.

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 phrase 'Fatos de um tópico para redigir o Relato' conveys that it fetches facts for a given topic to write a report, which is a recognizable resource. However the verb is only implied (a noun phrase), and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like resumo_semestre or coletar_semestre that also deal with semester data.

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 purpose hints at when it is used (writing the Relato), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The listed topic values help the caller pick a topic but do not route between sibling tools.

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