obter_documento

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Obtém' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention potential errors, permissions, or side effects. However, for a simple retrieval tool, this basic transparency is adequate, though it could add more context about failure modes.

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 action and object, front-loading the key information without any redundant words. It earns its place with zero waste.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the clear purpose statement, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does and the parameter's role; the output schema handles return values. The only minor gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings, already partially addressed in usage guidelines.

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, but it only says 'pelo seu id' which simply restates the parameter name 'id_documento' without adding new meaning. It does not clarify format, constraints, or behavior for invalid ids; the sole parameter's purpose is already evident from its name.

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 'Obtém' (gets) and the resource 'conteúdo completo de um documento de referência' (complete content of a reference document), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'buscar_documentos' and 'listar_documentos' which involve searching or listing. The 'pelo seu id' (by its id) further specifies the exact retrieval method.

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 usage when you have a specific document id ('pelo seu id'), which clearly differentiates it from searching or listing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the id-based retrieval context is clear, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' criteria.

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