tomticket_read_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the key safety statement 'Nao altera dados' (does not alter data), which signals a non-mutating read operation. However, it does not mention potential errors, authorization requirements, or what happens if the article_id is invalid.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that state the primary action and the safety characteristic. Every word earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core action and read-only guarantee. However, it lacks contextual guidance such as using list/search tools to first obtain an article_id, and it does not describe the expected return content beyond the word 'conteudo'.

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%, and the description does not explain the article_id parameter beyond the general mention of 'um artigo'. The parameter name and schema provide minimal clarity, but the description adds no guidance on how to identify or obtain the article_id.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Le o conteudo de um artigo da base de conhecimento' (reads the content of a knowledge base article). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling list/search tools by focusing on single-article content retrieval, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of tomticket_list_articles or tomticket_search_articles. The description implies use when you need an article's content, but it does not state how to obtain the article_id or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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