preparar_rit

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that this is a diagnostic/router that reports semester state and recommends the next tool, but discloses nothing about output shape or what the listed RITs contain.

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?

Three sentences, tightly front-loaded with the entry-point role first, then its diagnostic function, then the no-argument fallback. Every sentence earns its place.

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 routing tool with no output schema but present annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it explains the mode of operation and the fallback. The only gap is the unexplained 'seguir_sem_decidir' 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains 'semestre' as the semester in AAAA.P format and its absence behavior, which is helpful, but the second parameter 'seguir_sem_decidir' is never mentioned, leaving it undocumented.

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 gives a specific role: 'PONTO DE PARTIDA' (entry point) that reports which step the semester is in and which tool to call next. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling action tools (gerar_alteracoes, salvar_no_suap, etc.) as the orchestration/routing entry point for RIT work.

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 states the trigger condition explicitly ('qualquer pedido sobre o RIT') and describes the behavior when no semester is supplied (lists RITs to choose). It does not name the specific sibling tools it routes to, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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