adversarial_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden; it only reveals that an external model is asked to attack the proposal. Side effects, external-call costs/failures, return format, and permissions/requirements are left unspecified, which is a thin disclosure for a networked tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the exact action and target, with no filler or repeated schema content. 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?

The description clearly states the core function and gives a hint of the output ('apontar falhas concretas'), but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves out return structure, behavior/usage caveats, and failure-handling context. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 schema already covers all five parameters with descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating the proposal as 'proposta, plano ou solucao'.

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 specific verb ('Pede... atacar') and names the resource ('proposta, plano ou solucao') with a clear outcome ('apontar falhas concretas'). The external-model/adversarial angle distinguishes it from siblings like review_workspace or security_audit.

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 by the purpose—adversarial critique of a proposal by an external model—but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings like consult_model or review_workspace. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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