Diagnostico Web

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real internals: it logs in, counts menu screens, opens a sample, and verifies fields/actions, positioning itself as an alarm on panel changes. However, it never states whether the operation is read-only, what credentials/permissions it needs, or any side effects of logging in and opening screens.

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 check, then rationale (replay depends on panel shape), then the parameter hint — a logical order with little waste. Slightly longer than needed but every sentence carries information.

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 single-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, internal behavior, and the alarm use case, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted. The only missing pieces are safety/permission context, which matters because it performs a login.

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% and the single `caminho` parameter is already documented as 'Tela específica a conferir; senão, uma amostra.' The description adds a usage motive ('antes de uma operação importante') but no format, path syntax, or validity detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (confere/faz login, conta, abre amostra) and resource (modo telas: login web, catálogo, forma das telas), and the goal (alarme se a Ahreas mudar o painel). It is distinguishable from diagnostic siblings like listar_telas/descrever_tela, though it never explicitly names `diagnostico` as the alternative.

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?

It gives one clear usage scenario — pass `caminho` to check a specific screen 'antes de uma operação importante nela' — but provides no when-not guidance or explicit routing versus the sibling `diagnostico` tool. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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