Check Structure

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does partially: it discloses a non-obvious negative behavior (optional lists are not penalized) and the diagnostic scope. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutates the project, nor what happens on a missing/invalid path, which leaves the safety profile undefined for an agent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then broken into scannable bullets, each of which adds a distinct scope item. Slightly redundant phrasing ('Verifica elementos...' repeated) but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the check scope is well covered. The gap is on the input side: with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the agent is left guessing what 'project_path' should point at and that 'standard' is a selectable parameter.

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% and there are two parameters, yet the description never mentions 'project_path' or 'standard'. Since 'standard' defaults to ABNT_14724 and the whole description is written as ABNT-specific, the agent gets no signal that other standards might be selectable or what path format is expected.

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 ('Valida a conformidade da estrutura acadêmica') pinned to a named standard (ABNT NBR 14724:2011), then enumerates exactly which elements are checked (pré-textuais, textuais, pós-textuais) and which NBR 6024 numbering errors are diagnosed. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like audit_illustrations_and_tables or validate_citations, which cover different surface areas.

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 bullet outlining that optional lists (figuras, tabelas, siglas) are not penalized implicitly tells the agent what this tool does and does not flag, which is useful usage context. However, no explicit when-to-use signal, no named alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be scaffolded first) are given.

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