verificar_saude_fontes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful traits ('públicos' and 'leves' suggesting public, low-impact probes), but it does not disclose failure behavior, rate limits, or whether the probes are read-only beyond the implicit meaning of 'probe'.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and outcome with no filler words. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic action and result. However, it does not explain what 'cataloged probes' or 'sources' refer to in concrete terms, nor when an agent should invoke this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics.

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 a clear verb ('executa probes') and states the resource and output ('informa a saúde de cada fonte'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling data-query tools, though it does not specify which sources/fontes are covered.

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 intended use is implied: run when you need to check source health. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be preferred over the many sibling tools.

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