abrir_pagina

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful side effect: the PDF opens in the user's browser rather than returning data. However, it omits other behavioral facts an agent needs, such as what happens with an out-of-range page, whether this requires the case/file to be prepared first, or any failure behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action, target, location, and intent are all packed efficiently with zero wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, which the description correctly omits. Still, with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves the required "caso" argument and error/permission behavior undocumented, so it is only minimally complete for a three-parameter tool.

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 compensate. It only loosely signals the pagina parameter ("página indicada") and implies arquivo ("PDF original"), but says nothing about the required caso identifier and gives no format or validity details for any of the three parameters.

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 (abre), resource (PDF original), target page, and destination (navegador / tela do usuário), which clearly separates it from a content-fetching sibling like obter_pagina. It does not name that sibling explicitly, but the browser-screen framing makes the action unambiguous.

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?

"para conferência visual do documento" implies the use case (human visual inspection), so usage is inferable but never stated as a when-to-use rule. There is no exclusion or guidance distinguishing it from obter_pagina, which is the obvious alternative for retrieving page content.

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