guia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-value burdens are largely carried by structured fields. The description adds that the tool serves up guide content by section, which is modest context beyond the annotations but nothing about pagination or content depth.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is before the when-to-read instruction. The section list is dense but earns its place by revealing the tool's scope. No wasted framing.

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?

With an output schema covering return values and read-only annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey purpose and invocation, which it does. The lone gap is that the `assunto` value space is implied rather than stated, which matters for a 0%-coverage parameter.

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% on the single `assunto` parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming section values (fluxo, topicos, pendencias, relatos, lattes, regras) and hinting that `fluxo` is a valid value, but it never explains the 'indice' default nor states that these section names are the accepted inputs.

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 names the resource (a guide for the Expeditto assistant) and enumerates its coverage areas — fluxo, topicos, pendencias, relatos, lattes, regras — so an agent understands this is a reference/help tool rather than an action tool, distinguishing it from action siblings like gerar_alteracoes or salvar_no_suap. It stops short of explaining what 'Expeditto' is, but the enumerated sections make the purpose concrete.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: read `fluxo` at the start of a conversation about the RIT, and the specific subject when needed. That is a clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or when-not to use it (e.g., versus contexto_topico), so it falls short of a 5.

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