summarize_sped

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 discloses that the tool reads a local .txt file and produces a summary, but does not mention side effects, destructive actions, permissions, error handling, or performance characteristics. It appears read-only but this is not explicitly stated.

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 (two sentences), front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information: what the tool does and the input format. No redundant phrases.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the return values are covered. However, the description lacks distinction from similar sibling tools (e.g., analisar_sped) and does not explain how the summary differs from a full analysis. The file path requirement is clear, but other context like file size limits or encoding is absent.

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?

There is only one parameter 'file_path' with no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the expected format: 'Recebe caminho de arquivo .txt local.' This tells the agent the file must be local and .txt, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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's function: executive summarization of SPED files (Fiscal, Contribuicoes, ECF, ECD). It specifies what it does (identifies type, extracts period, company, total records, blocks, produces summary in pt-BR) and the input format (local .txt file). This is specific and distinguishes it from generic file readers.

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 implies usage for summarizing SPED files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like analisar_sped or listar_registros_sped. No when-not-to-use or alternative conditions are given. The user must infer based on the verb 'summarize' vs 'analyze' or 'list'.

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