Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real side effect — that refresh=true rebuilds the local index — which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it omits whether the rebuild is expensive or blocking, whether it needs permissions, and what the check result looks like beyond the three enumerated items.

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 sentences, zero filler: the first front-loads what is checked, the second explains the one parameter that changes behavior. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 one-optional-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and the one mutating option, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gap: it never indicates the shape of the returned status (e.g., per-check pass/fail), which an agent may need to interpret results.

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, and it does: it explains that 'refresh=true' rebuilds the index, giving the boolean a concrete meaning beyond type and default. It does not spell out the false/default behavior explicitly, so the addition is good but not exhaustive.

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 names a specific verb ('Checa') and enumerates three concrete resources checked: the Recent Design API's responsiveness, the local index state, and whether ffmpeg is installed. This clearly identifies it as a diagnostic/health tool, implicitly distinguishing it from the data-oriented siblings (search, browse, get, taxonomy, media), though it never says so explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight/diagnostic check, but the description never states when to call it (e.g., before search/browse operations, or when a sibling fails) or when not to. The only conditional guidance present concerns the parameter ('refresh=true reconstrói o índice'), not tool selection.

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