Abrir a interface no navegador

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds real value by disclosing the prerequisite state (app running) and the browser selection behavior, going beyond what the annotations state.

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 short sentences with no waste; the primary behavior is front-loaded and the prerequisite is appended compactly. Every clause earns its place.

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 launcher with no output schema, the description covers the action, the browser selection, and the prerequisite state. It does not address failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the app is not running) or any confirmation returned, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters (pagina, firefox_portatil) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the browser choice, which loosely maps to firefox_portatil, but adds no syntax, defaults, or format details 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 states a specific verb and resource: opening the PJe-Calc web interface in the default browser (or bundled portable Firefox). This is clear and distinct from sibling tools like pjecalc_paginas or pjecalc_status, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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?

It gives one prerequisite — 'Requer o app em execução' (the app must be running) — which is genuinely useful context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this versus related tools such as pjecalc_paginas or pjecalc_status, leaving usage largely implied.

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