analisar_pdf_modelo

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why: embedded images are written to disk with their paths. It also discloses constraints beyond the annotations — 'Só lê o arquivo indicado', 'Não chama a API', and the special case that a paper photo yields only an image with no extracted text. It stops short of describing how rendered pages are persisted or output size limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then side effects and constraints. The long enumeration of returned JSON fields is verbose but earns its place because there is no output schema; it is structured and readable rather than padded.

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?

With no output schema and a file-writing side effect, the description carries the burden well: it describes the returned JSON structure, the rendered page images, disk-written image paths, and the read-only/no-API constraints. Minor gaps remain around rendered-page persistence and any size or rate limits.

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 100%, so the schema already documents caminho, paginas, resolucao and pasta_saida, including defaults and bounds. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the output-field enumeration is about returns, not inputs. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (analisa), a specific resource (o PDF modelo do cliente) and the outcome (replicar o layout num template Typst). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gerar_pdf_modelo or salvar_modelo, which consume its output rather than produce the analysis.

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 clear context: it is used to replicate a client's existing layout, and it explicitly points to gerar_pdf_modelo and salvar_modelo as the tools that consume the saved image paths. It does not, however, give explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus neighbors such as mostrar_arquivo.

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