gerar_sql

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it does not execute SQL, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it omits other important details such as required schema context, potential errors, or limitations. The covered behavior is minimal.

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 short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks necessary elaboration and structure, making it closer to under-specification than effective conciseness.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain generated SQL structure, parameter usage, or any nuances, making it impossible for an agent to use it correctly based on the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no information about the parameters (tabelas, colunas, filtros, permitir_baixa_confianca), their purpose, or how they map to the SQL generation. This leaves the agent without any guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 it generates a structural, parameterized Oracle SELECT without executing SQL, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'gerar_select', which likely has overlapping functionality, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to prefer this tool over gerar_select, gerar_join, or others, nor any exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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