Applies deterministic rules R1-R6 to credit proposals, returning SEGUE, RECUSADA, or REVISÃO HUMANA with all applicable reasons and a Markdown summary.
Aplica as regras R1–R6 de forma determinística sobre uma proposta de crédito e retorna parecer (SEGUE | RECUSADA | REVISÃO HUMANA), motivos e resumo Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proposta | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses deterministic rule application (R1–R6) and enumerates the three decision outcomes. It does not describe side effects, auth needs, or input validation behavior, but for a computation-heavy triage tool the core behavior is clear.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the outputs. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy or 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description supplies the decision enum anyway. The main gap is input specification: the single parameter is undocumented and the description does not explain what shape the credit proposal should take. With no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, this leaves an agent partially under-informed.
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% and the single parameter 'proposta' has no schema-level explanation. The description mentions 'proposta de crédito', adding domain meaning, but does not clarify the expected structure (object vs. string) or required fields. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 ('Aplica as regras R1–R6') and resource ('proposta de crédito') and clearly describes the output types (parecer, motivos, resumo Markdown). This is enough to distinguish it from any potential sibling, though none exist. The deterministic nature of the rule application is also explicitly stated.
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 the tool is for credit proposal triage by naming the domain ('proposta de crédito') and the rule set (R1–R6). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. The usage context is inferable but not directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.