Criar simulado de revisão

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this persists something; the description is consistent with that by saying it creates a simulado. Beyond the annotations it only adds the question-selection rule, and says nothing about whether the simulado is stored, whether it is reusable via listar_simulados, or what happens on an empty error history.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the differentiating constraint placed immediately after. Nothing is padded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 three-optional-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential selection semantics. It stops short of describing the return value or the empty-result case, but those are modest gaps given the simplicity of the operation.

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 100%, so gerar_pdf, disciplina and quantidade are already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes the one thing the schema cannot express: the population from which questions are drawn, which materially affects how quantidade and disciplina are interpreted.

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 states a specific verb ("Cria") and resource ("simulado") plus a precise scope: only questions previously answered wrong and not since answered correctly. That scope clause is what separates it from the sibling criar_simulado, so an agent can choose between them from the text alone.

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 is implied rather than stated: the error-based filter tells the agent this is the review-oriented variant, but there is no explicit "use this instead of criar_simulado when..." routing, no prerequisite, and no guidance on what happens when the user has no qualifying wrong questions.

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