descrever_tabela

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'describes' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it performs no modifications, nor does it describe the output format or any side effects. This leaves the agent guessing about safety and return value.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, containing no redundant wording. However, it is so brief that it barely covers the essentials, but conciseness itself is handled well.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It does not say what the agent will receive as output, whether it returns the table's metadata, or anything about the file and sheet handling. An agent could not fully understand the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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 a single required string parameter 'tabela' with zero description coverage. The tool description adds no meaning about what values are valid, what format the table name should have, or how it relates to the file/sheet context. With a 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not.

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 states a specific verb ('descreve' – describes) and a clear resource ('tabela' – table), plus the scope of description: file, sheet, and headers. This is distinct from siblings like listar_tabelas (list tables) and buscar_coluna (search column). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. No context is provided about when this should be preferred over listar_tabelas or buscar_tabelas.

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