sugerir_ferramentas

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 mentions the tool 'suggests' tools, implying it's a read-only advisory function, but doesn't describe what the suggestion output looks like (e.g., list of tool names, explanations), whether it has limitations (e.g., based on available data), or any performance considerations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the essential information in a structured manner.

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 tool's advisory nature, single parameter with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or limitations. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum for a simple suggestion 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?

The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but the input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'consulta', which is well-documented with examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description's context about 'consultas complexas' (complex queries) indirectly relates to the parameter but doesn't add specific semantic value beyond the schema.

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: 'Sugere quais ferramentas usar para uma determinada consulta sobre a Câmara dos Deputados' (Suggests which tools to use for a specific query about the Chamber of Deputies). It specifies the verb 'sugere' (suggests) and the resource 'ferramentas' (tools) with the domain context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'diagnosticar_consulta', 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 clear usage context: 'Use antes de fazer consultas complexas para entender o melhor caminho' (Use before making complex queries to understand the best path). This indicates when to use it (before complex queries) and implies its role as a planning tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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