Opens a SUAP window so instructors can complete CAPTCHA/Gov.br sign-in; it closes automatically. Returns a task ID to track progress and prompt the instructor to watch the window.
Abre uma janela do SUAP para o docente fazer login (CAPTCHA/Gov.br); ela fecha sozinha.
Devolve tarefa_id: acompanhe com aguardar_tarefa e avise o docente para olhar a janela.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the window auto-closes, login requires human interaction (CAPTCHA/Gov.br), and the call is asynchronous, returning a `tarefa_id` rather than the login result. That async, human-in-the-loop nature is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the auth constraint, then the return value and follow-up. No filler.
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 no output schema, the description carries the return contract (a `tarefa_id` to be tracked by `aguardar_tarefa`) and the interaction requirement, which is sufficient for an agent to call and sequence this tool 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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics and instead documents the return value, which is the relevant contract for a no-arg call.
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+resource (opens a SUAP window for the teacher's login) and names the concrete auth mechanism (CAPTCHA/Gov.br). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like abrir_no_navegador because it is scoped to the SUAP login flow.
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 tells the agent what to do next (track with `aguardar_tarefa`, tell the teacher to watch the window), which implies when it fits in a workflow. It does not state an explicit when-not or name a competing alternative, so it stops 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.