Anexar evidência

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that it attaches evidence, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or how the attachment is stored. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the tool name implies.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence with no filler. It is efficiently written, but it errs on the side of underspecification rather than concise completeness. Still, for the dimension of conciseness, it scores well.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the interdependency of target IDs (bug_id, run_id, ticket_id), the meaning of 'kind', or the required path_or_url semantics. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 only 17%, with only path_or_url documented in the schema. The description does not compensate for this gap: it vaguely references 'log, screenshot, report, URL' which correspond to kind values, but does not explain how to use kind, note, bug_id, run_id, or ticket_id. This is insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: attaching logs, screenshots, reports, or URLs to a ticket, bug, or run. It names the specific verb (anexar), the resource types (evidência), and the target entities (ticket, bug, run), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like qa_record_bug or qa_list.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no basis to choose this over other QA tools.

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