resumir_texto

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add real value by stating processing is local ('localmente') and that only the summary is injected into context, which is the key behavioral trait for an agent managing its window. It does not say whether the submitted text is stored or logged anywhere, nor confirm that the operation has no side effects on the source.

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 short lines with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the usage preference and a parameter hint — no filler or repetition. The trailing 'foco:' fragment is terse but readable; slightly cleaner formatting would make the parameter note stand out more.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the tool is low-complexity with two parameters. The description covers purpose, selection rationale, execution locality, and parameter intent; only edge behavior (empty 'foco', input size limits) is unaddressed.

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% (properties have only titles 'Texto' and 'Foco'), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'texto' is characterized by example content types (log, command output, diff) and 'foco' is explained with a concrete sample value ('quais testes falharam e por quê'). It omits what happens when 'foco' is left empty (the default ""), which is the remaining semantic gap.

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 and resource: 'Resume um texto longo (log, saída de comando, diff) em poucas linhas, localmente' — verb, input type, output shape, and execution locality are all named. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'resumir_arquivo', but the enumerated input types (log, command output, diff) make the text-in vs. file-in distinction inferable.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance plus a rationale: 'Prefira esta ferramenta a ler saídas grandes inteiras: só o resumo entra no contexto', which tells the agent this tool should replace raw reads for context economy. No explicit when-not-to-use or named-alternative routing (e.g., toward resumir_arquivo) is provided.

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