Chamada Bruta à API Despezzas

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that GET is safe without extra flags, while other methods require explicit confirmation. This adds some context but does not detail error behavior, side effects, or response format.

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 a single sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose and key condition. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context such as base URL, authentication, valid endpoints beyond the path pattern, and error handling. For a generic raw API tool, this is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 provides no details about parameter semantics. It only mentions method flags 'allow_destructive' and 'confirm' implicitly; parameters like 'path', 'query', and 'body' are left unexplained.

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 states 'Executa GET bruto' indicating a raw GET request, and notes that other methods require special flags. It clearly identifies the tool's primary verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target specific endpoints.

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 specifies when to use GET versus other methods by requiring 'allow_destructive=true' and 'confirm=true' for non-GET operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools or provide guidance on when to use the raw API over dedicated tools.

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