inferir_relacionamentos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the inference is based 'somente por metadados', not on data contents. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the operation has no side effects, nor does it mention any permissions or rate limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the key qualifier ('somente por metadados') in the minimum necessary words.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the result and the inference basis. It could be slightly more complete by saying whether the tool also persists/publishes these relationships, but the verb 'Retorna' and the existing output schema cover the core invocation needs.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The phrase 'somente por metadados' adds meaning by explaining why no user input is needed: the operation works on metadata already available in the catalog. This satisfies the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('Retorna') and a specific resource ('relacionamentos candidatos inferidos somente por metadados'), making it clear what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like encontrar_caminho or gerar_join, but the 'candidate relationships from metadata only' scope distinguishes it from them.

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 when to use it: when the agent needs candidate relationships derived from metadata. However, it gives no explicit context, no exclusions, and does not mention alternative sibling tools, so an agent must infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

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