Protocolo de trabalho

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful provenance the annotations cannot convey: the data comes from protocolo.md or the PROTOCOLO variable. It remains silent on caching, freshness, or error behavior when the file is absent.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the routing instruction ("Leia antes de responder clientes") is placed last as a call to action. The mid-sentence enumeration of protocol contents is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what to expect.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; enumerating rules, prices, deadlines, and tone does that well, along with the two possible sources. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits behavior for the failure case where no protocolo.md exists.

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% and the single enum parameter (format: text/json) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never mentions the format option, adding no meaning beyond the schema. With only one well-documented parameter, this is acceptable but not additive.

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?

States a specific verb ("Devolve") and a concrete resource ("protocolo de atendimento") and then enumerates its contents (regras, precos, prazos, tom, o que pode ou nao prometer). No sibling in the Discord-oriented list could be confused with it, so the boundary is clear without opening the schema.

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?

"Leia antes de responder clientes" gives an explicit moment to invoke the tool, which is stronger than implied usage. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling covers the same purpose, so that omission is minor.

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