pasta_entrada

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds nothing about what is returned, whether a folder must already exist, or how the 'E8' reference affects behavior. The phrasing ('where the teacher places...') even hints at a write/placement concern that the readOnly annotation does not clarify away.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than through efficient information density.

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 0% parameter coverage, no output schema, and an ambiguous operation, the description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. At minimum it should say what the call returns and what 'semestre' expects.

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% for the single required parameter 'semestre', and the description never mentions it or explains its format (e.g., '2024.1'). The description provides zero semantic help for the only parameter.

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 never states a verb or operation; it describes a location/convention ('onde o docente coloca comprovantes'), leaving the agent unsure whether the tool returns a path, lists files, or creates a folder. The content-type and per-topic-subfolder detail hints at scope but does not tell the agent what the tool actually does.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus siblings such as 'montar_anexos', 'classificar_entrada', or 'salvar_texto'. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no exclusions.

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