Ver gabarito

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

The annotations already declare this a safe read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that, namely that the question statement is included alongside the answer for context, but it omits what happens on invalid or missing questions and gives no hint about the response shape.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that states the primary return value first and the secondary context payload second. There is no filler, though there is also no additional structure since the description is only one line.

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-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, safe annotations, and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of guidance on sibling selection and failure behavior, which are minor for a tool this narrow.

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%, with ano, numero, and the idioma enum already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it does not explain that idioma matters only for foreign-language questions 1-5 or how ano scopes the retrieval.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns the official answer key (correta alternativa) for a single ENEM question, plus the question statement for context. It clearly distinguishes the payload from retrieval tools like obter_questao, since the answer key is the primary output and the enunciado is only supporting context.

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 by the purpose: an agent should call this when it needs only the correct alternative rather than the full question. However, the description never states when to prefer obter_resposta over obter_questao, nor does it mention any prerequisite such as needing a valid ano/numero pair or the idioma constraint.

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