get_pensador

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' implying a read operation, but does not elaborate on any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is destructive. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose in the first line, followed by a clean Args section. Every sentence is necessary and there is no wasted text.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is largely complete. It could mention potential case sensitivity or error handling, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 does so effectively by explaining the 'slug' parameter with examples ('socrates', 'Kant', 'aristoteles') and the 'lang' parameter with explicit allowed values ('pt', 'en', 'es') and a default ('pt'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 clearly states 'Get the full profile of a philosopher/thinker' with a specific verb (Get) and resource (full profile). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buscar_pensador' (search) and 'listar_pensadores' (list) by focusing on a single, full profile retrieval.

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 slug (e.g., 'socrates') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buscar_pensador' for searching. It provides examples but lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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