nim_analisar_visao

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Calling it an alias implies identical behavior to nim_analyze_vision, but it discloses nothing about accepted image sources (URL vs. local file), model selection defaults, latency, or error behavior — all relevant for a vision call with a 3-parameter surface.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding, and the most important fact (the canonical target) is front-loaded. It is efficient rather than verbose; the issue is missing content, not wasted words.

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 thin compatibility alias the essentials are the deprecation notice and the canonical mapping, both of which are present, and there is no output schema to explain. However, an agent that lands on this tool first gets no statement of what it does or how to fill its required arguments, so it must consult the sibling description to proceed.

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 0% across three parameters (imagem_url_ou_arquivo, pergunta, modelo), and the description adds no meaning for any of them — notably not clarifying the ambiguous 'URL or file' input format. The alias reference implies parameters mirror nim_analyze_vision, which is the only, indirect, help provided.

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 never says what the tool actually does (analyze an image with a question); it only says it is an alias for nim_analyze_vision. That redirect does let an agent infer purpose from the sibling, and it clearly distinguishes this tool from that sibling as the non-canonical copy, but it is one inference step removed from a real verb+resource statement.

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?

"Compatibilidade com versões anteriores" implies the tool exists only for legacy callers and that nim_analyze_vision is the preferred entry point, which is useful routing guidance. It stops short of an explicit "prefer nim_analyze_vision; use this only if you have hardcoded the old name" statement, so the when-to-use rule is implied rather than stated.

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