jangada_ler_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that it returns full content but does not specify if it is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral traits.

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 concise, consisting of one sentence with embedded parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently explains parameters. However, it could be structured with clear sections for better readability.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. It is adequate for simple use but not complete for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool without extra context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'nome' is a file name (with/without .mdx) and provides specific examples (rag, mcp, etc.), and explains 'lang' defaults to 'pt' with 'en' option. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 clearly states 'Conteúdo completo de uma página' (full content of a page), indicating it retrieves full document content. It explains the parameters with examples, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jangada_listar_docs or jangada_buscar, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 description provides parameter examples and default values, implying usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to read a doc vs search or list), and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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