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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral transparency, but it only states that a certificate is generated. It does not specify side effects, persistence, permissions, or return behavior, which is especially relevant for an action that may create or deliver a file.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description leaves out what the tool returns or does with the generated certificate (e.g., create a file, return a URL, persist to a system). Since there are no annotations and no output schema, this behavioral gap is significant for an agent deciding whether this is the right call and what to expect.

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 parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond stating the purpose, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Gera' / 'generates') and a clear object ('certificado de conclusão para o aprendiz'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools 'trilha' and 'desafio', though the certificate-generation intent is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or contexts. The description is purely a definition of function, so an agent has no help choosing between this and 'trilha' or 'desafio'.

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

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

The description makes the read-only nature clear ('Retorna...') and there are no warnings about side effects. However, it provides no detail about response format, limits, or failure behavior, and there are no annotations to help.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose is immediately clear.

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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool, the description plus schema provide the essential calling context. It lacks examples of valid technology values and any indication of the response shape, but the tool appears low-complexity.

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 coverage is high: both parameters are documented. The description itself adds little beyond the schema; 'level' gives allowed examples ('iniciante ou avancado'), and 'technology' remains a generic name.

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 "returns a code challenge for a technology and level," with a specific verb and object. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'certificado', but the scope is understandable.

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?

Usage context is implied—call it when you need a code challenge for a given technology and skill level—but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer an alternative tool or avoid using it.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retorna' implies a read-only operation and makes the core behavior clear, but it does not state side-effect freedom, response shape, or any constraints (e.g., technology format). For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate but minimal.

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 efficiently conveys the resource and scope with no filler. It is immediately readable and contains all essential purpose information. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

The tool is simple, with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, the description omits context about what the study plan contains, how it relates to the sibling tools (desafio, certificado), and whether any ordering or prerequisites apply. It is acceptable for a basic query but not fully complete for an agent navigating the tool landscape.

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%: each parameter already has a meaningful description with an example (e.g., 'javascript' and 'iniciante ou avancado'). The tool description only restates 'tecnologia e nível' without adding value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Retorna') and a clear resource ('plano de estudos') scoped by technology and level, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools (desafio, certificado), but the names and resource type make the distinction fairly evident.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the alternatives (desafio, certificado). There are no when-to-use hints, exclusions, or context about whether this should be used before or after a challenge/certificate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and sibling tool names.

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