gerar_join

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does mention one negative behavior ('sem afirmar chave estrangeira'), which is useful, but it omits other critical aspects: whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or any side effects. The burden of transparency is not met.

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 front-loads the core purpose and adds a key caveat. Every word earns its place—there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with only two scalar parameters.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool does but fails to state what it returns (e.g., the structure or form of the proposed JOIN). It also does not mention whether the join is based on a fuzzy match, naming convention, or something else. The lack of output schema makes the return format a significant omission, though the purpose is established.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It confirms that the tool works with two tables, matching the two parameters, but it does not explain the roles of origem and destino beyond their self-explanatory names. The names 'tabela_origem' and 'tabela_destino' are semantically clear on their own, so the added value is minimal but not absent.

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 uses the specific verb 'Propõe' (proposes) and identifies the resource as a direct candidate JOIN between two tables. The phrase 'sem afirmar chave estrangeira' explicitly distinguishes it from a tool that asserts foreign keys, which sets it apart from sibling tools like inferir_relacionamentos. This is clear and differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names sibling tools nor states any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied context is that it suggests a join without foreign key confirmation, but this is not framed as actionable guidance.

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