nim_extrair_documento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys behavior equivalence with nim_extract_document but says nothing about what that behavior is: no side effects, no content-size or format limits, no indication of whether it is a read-only transformation or a server-side operation.

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 no padding, and the key fact (that it is a legacy alias) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for what it attempts, even though what it attempts is minimal.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, the description would need to describe the extraction behavior and the two inputs. Instead it only redirects to another tool, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly without opening the sibling's definition.

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 2 parameters, and the description adds no parameter information at all. 'conteudo_bruto' and 'formato_desejado' (with enum markdown/json/tabela) are left entirely to the caller to guess from the Portuguese names.

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 only states that this is an alias for nim_extract_document; it never says what the tool actually does (extract content from a document). The name and the named sibling let an agent infer the purpose indirectly, but the description itself is a pointer rather than a statement of function.

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 clearly frames this as a compatibility alias, which tells the agent to prefer nim_extract_document when available. There is no explicit 'use X instead' or deprecation note, but the routing signal is unambiguous enough for practical selection.

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