previa_preenchimento

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a preview of what will be sent (texts and attachments), which clarifies the non-destructive nature and content scope, but it does not describe return format, authentication, or rate limits beyond that.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It efficiently combines purpose and a usage directive, though the lack of any structural separation makes it slightly terse for a tool with an undocumented parameter.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fails to document the parameter's meaning and does not describe what the preview returns or how it is presented. While the read-only annotation reduces the need for safety details, the parameter omission is a significant gap in an otherwise minimal description.

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'. The description does not mention this parameter at all, nor does it explain what semester information is needed or how it affects the preview. An agent must guess the parameter's meaning from its 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?

The description states a specific action (preview of RIT form content including texts and attachments) and implies a purpose (show before saving). It distinguishes itself from a save tool by mentioning 'antes de salvar', but does not name a sibling alternative. Clear enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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 instruction 'mostre ao docente antes de salvar' gives clear context: use this tool to show the teacher what will be sent before committing a save. No explicit when-not conditions or alternative tool names are provided, but the intended workflow position is clear.

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