analise_presenca_deputado

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool analyzes presence and participation, but doesn't describe what the analysis entails (e.g., metrics, formats, or limitations), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context or limitations.

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?

Given the complexity of analyzing presence and participation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns (e.g., statistics, lists, summaries), potential errors, or behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to guide 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters ('idDeputado', 'dataInicio', 'dataFim'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Analisa a presença e participação de um deputado em eventos (reuniões, sessões, audiências) em um período específico.' It specifies the verb ('analisa'), resource ('presença e participação de um deputado'), and scope ('eventos em um período específico'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eventos_deputado' or 'discursos_deputado', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'eventos_deputado' (which might list events for a deputy) or 'discursos_deputado' (which might analyze speeches), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the description but not explicitly stated.

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