relatorio_economia

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the figure is an estimate rather than an exact measurement, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about the data source, the time window covered, whether it is strictly read-only, or whether the local agent must be running. For a zero-parameter report tool the risk is low, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence that leads with the quantity being reported and immediately qualifies it as an estimate and states the breakdown dimension. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and an output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be described. What is missing is the scope of the report — time range, whether it covers one session or all history, and how 'savings' is defined — which an agent would likely want before invoking 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter surface for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the mention of 'por tipo de tarefa' does hint at the shape of the aggregation, which adds slight value.

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 names a concrete metric (tokens saved by the local agent) and its grouping (per task type), with the caveat that it is an estimate. The verb is implicit — it is a report/read tool rather than an action — but an agent can still tell what it returns. There is no explicit differentiation from siblings, though none of the listed siblings appear to cover cost/economy reporting.

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 gives no indication of when to call this versus alternatives, or under what conditions the report is meaningful (e.g. after a session, over what period). Usage is only inferred from the noun phrase itself. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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