analisar_sped

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or permissions. It only states it extracts information, leaving the agent unaware of read-only status or potential impacts.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core action and key details are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value.

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 output schema exists and parameters are fully described, the description covers the tool's purpose, input format, and output content (period, company, etc.). It could mention that it returns structured data or errors, but the standard is met.

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%, with both parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the mention of pipe-delimited format is already in the schema's description for 'conteudo'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool analyzes SPED files, specifying types (EFD-ICMS/IPI, EFD-Contribuições, ECD, ECF) and what info it extracts (period, company, register types, errors). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'listar_registros_sped' and 'summarize_sped' by covering broader analysis including errors.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listar_registros_sped' or 'summarize_sped'. The description implies a use case (analyzing raw SPED text) but does not provide criteria for selection.

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