Health check completo do projeto

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool analyzes and scores, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., if it runs tests, reads files only, or modifies anything), permissions, or operational constraints such as runtime.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose with a bracketed label and efficiently enumerates the scope. No word is wasted, and it delivers clear value.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description does not need to explain return values. It lists the main analysis areas and the score, which is sufficient for a high-level diagnostic tool. It lacks deeper context on interpretation or side effects, but remains reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable given the structure. Baseline of 4 for 0-param tools is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Analisa tudo') with a concrete scope (frameworks, tests, coverage, failures, learnings) and a distinctive output (0-100 score). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like qa_full_analysis, which limits differentiation.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. With many sibling diagnostic tools, this omission is significant.

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