obter_schema_xml

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the schema contains but does not state whether authentication is required, what the response looks like, whether the operation has side effects, or how errors are surfaced.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter recap is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is short and helps confirm the optional parameters at a glance. No unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Core invocation context is present: required parameter, optional parameters, and a clear use case before enviar_registros. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify how the XSD is returned or what the agent should expect as a result, which would make the tool more self-sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by clarifying that 'entidade' is a slug and grouping the optional auth/environment parameters, but it does not deepen semantic understanding 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 uses a specific verb ('Obtém') and resource ('schema XSD de uma entidade'), and clarifies the purpose: validating XML before submission. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like listar_entidades, enviar_registros, and obter_status.

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 says to use this tool to check the expected XML structure before calling 'enviar_registros', which gives a concrete trigger. It does not discuss when not to use it or contrast it with other sibling tools, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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