Análise completa: executor + consultor inteligente

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It lists actions but fails to disclose that test execution is conditional on the executeTests parameter (default false), creating a potential mislead with the phrase 'executa testes'. It also does not mention any side effects of running tests or whether the tool modifies project state.

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 sentence that front-loads the core value ('Análise completa') and then succinctly itemizes the capabilities. It is concise, free of redundancy, and every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex and the description lacks important context: it does not mention prerequisites like a detected project, further defines what exactly is 'detecta', or clarifies how it differs from similar all-in-one siblings like qa_auto. The description is not complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 only parameter executeTests is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter and may even conflict with it by implying tests always run. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs a complete analysis, listing specific actions: detect, execute tests, analyze stability, predict problems, calculate risks, and generate prioritized recommendations. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning as a combined executor + consultant, which is unique among the sibling tools.

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 implies usage for a comprehensive, one-command analysis that combines execution and intelligence, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like run_tests or analyze_failures, nor does it provide exclusions. The guidance is present but only implicit.

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