nim_raciocinar_profundo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only confirms delegation to nim_deep_reason and discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, runtime behavior, or output shape; the alias relationship is a hint but not sufficient disclosure.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded with the alias identity and compatibility purpose. It contains no wasted text, though its brevity reflects missing detail rather than fully earned conciseness.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It neither explains the parameters nor describes the behavior inherited from nim_deep_reason.

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% and the description never mentions 'problema', 'contexto', or 'modo'. With three undocumented parameters and an enum for 'modo', the description provides no semantic guidance to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

It identifies itself as an alias for nim_deep_reason and mentions backward compatibility, which distinguishes it from the current reasoning tool. However, it never states the underlying operation, resource, or effect, so an agent must inspect nim_deep_reason to understand what the tool actually does.

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?

The phrase 'compatibilidade com versões anteriores' implies it is for legacy callers and that nim_deep_reason is the current equivalent. It does not explicitly say to prefer nim_deep_reason or give clear when/when-not guidance.

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