gerar_arquivo

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

The description discloses a key behavior: the file will be available within 2 hours, indicating an asynchronous operation. It also mentions that optional credentials fall back to environment variables, providing insight into authentication. Since no annotations are provided, this description carries the full burden and addresses the most critical behavioral aspects.

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 compact, with a clear purpose in the first sentence and a concise parameter list. It avoids unnecessary detail while covering the essential points. The structure is logical, though it repeats some schema information, it does so in a readable format.

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?

While the description covers the operation and timing, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a status or confirmation) nor error scenarios. Since there is no output schema, this is a gap. However, for a simple tool that primarily triggers an FTP file generation, the description is mostly sufficient, but missing return info lowers completeness.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds semantic relationships: the ticket and entidade must match those from 'obter_registros', and the optional usuario/senha/ambiente default to environment variables. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 generates an FTP file from records previously obtained via 'obter_registros', specifying the verb (gera), resource (arquivo FTP), and the dependency on a prior step. It distinguishes itself from siblings like obter_registros (which retrieves data) and enviar_registros (which sends data).

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?

It explicitly instructs to use the ticket returned by 'obter_registros', implying the prerequisite call. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for generating an FTP file after fetching records. No exclusion is given, but the guidance is sufficient for proper sequencing.

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