compras_pncp_modalidades

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is local (does not call upstream), sourced from the official PNCP table, and warns about the two different code tables in circulation, including the None case for unavailable modalities. This goes beyond basic expectations and provides useful context for correct interpretation of results.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a source note and a clearly marked ATENÇÃO block with bullet points. It is slightly longer than minimal but every sentence serves a purpose, especially the critical warning about the two code systems.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers the necessary context: it explains the local nature, the official source, and the relationship to a sibling tool. It effectively disambiguates the modality codes without needing to describe return types, making it sufficiently complete for a reference lookup tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric baseline is 4. Although there is no parameter semantics to explain, the description adds value by clarifying the meaning of the output codes and the field `equivalente_dados_abertos`, which helps understand the data returned.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Cheat sheet local' for PNCP contracting modality codes, clearly stating the resource (modality codes) and its scope (local, official PNCP table). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting the PNCP code system with the Dados Abertos/SIASG enumeration, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states that `codigo` here is used in all `compras_pncp_*` tools and in `modalidadeIdPncp`, and it names the alternative endpoint (`compras_contratacoes_14133_listar`) with a different enum, including the mapping field `equivalente_dados_abertos`. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-use-other guidance.

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