resumo_do_dia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the content scope (text plus transcriptions) and the UTC default, but says nothing about volume limits, whether large days are truncated or paginated, permissions needed, or behavior on days with no content.

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?

Two short clauses with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the default-value note. The parenthetical '(texto + transcrições)' earns its place by defining scope, though the trailing default note could have been merged more tightly.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what it fetches, from where, for which day, and the default. The main residual gap is return shape and size behavior, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline applies. The description only adds the UTC timezone qualifier for the default date, which is a small but real clarification beyond the schema's 'default = hoje'; nothing is said about the grupo slug format beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns all content of a group on a given day, explicitly scoped to 'texto + transcrições' and clarifying that it fetches raw material 'para a IA resumir' rather than producing a summary. It is clearly not a generic message reader, but it never names the closest sibling (e.g. ler_mensagens) so the distinction must be inferred.

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 phrase 'para a IA resumir' implies the use case (build a day summary of a group) and the default of today hints at the common invocation. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative for narrower reads such as reading individual messages.

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