Ler um arquivo .PJC

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only that the output is a human-readable summary, saying nothing about failure modes (missing/invalid .PJC path) or output format, so it adds modest value on top of structured data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the usage context. The long enumeration of summary contents is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists to describe the return.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing what the readable summary contains, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide the tool is appropriate. It stops short of stating the output medium (plain text vs structured) or error behavior for unreadable files.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Caminho do .PJC'), so the schema already carries the meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no path format, extension, or relative-vs-absolute guidance.

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+resource ('Resumo legível de um .PJC') and enumerates the exact domain content the summary covers (partes, históricos salariais, verbas, FGTS, correção e juros). It implicitly separates itself from generate/import/export siblings via 'conferir um arquivo gerado ou entender um cálculo exportado', but never names an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Serve para conferir um arquivo gerado ou entender um cálculo exportado' gives an implied context of use, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (calculo_importar_pjc, calculo_modelo_json) for an agent that needs to load rather than merely inspect a file.

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