montar_anexos

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

Annotations already declare the operation is non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful artifact context (what the PDF contains and the 10 MB limit) but says nothing about where files are written, return values, or required auth.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and parenthetical details that all earn their place; 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description documents the generated artifact well enough to understand purpose, but it omits parameter semantics and usage conditions, leaving the agent to guess what value to pass and when to invoke it.

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?

One parameter ('semestre') has 0% schema description coverage, yet the description never mentions it, its format, or which semester's topics are processed. The parameter's meaning must be inferred from its Portuguese name alone.

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 ('Gera') and artifact ('PDF de anexo') scoped to each topic, with composition details (capa + índice + comprovantes) and a size cap. It is distinct from sibling generators like gerar_rascunhos, though it does not 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 when-to-use instruction, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer this over siblings such as gerar_rascunhos or salvar_no_suap. The purpose is implied but the agent receives no routing guidance.

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