Viajar no tempo: ver evolução do agente

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a visualization ('VISUALIZAÇÃO') and shows historical data aggregated by week, which implies a non-mutating read operation. It doesn't mention auth or performance, but for a simple viewing tool this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear visual marker and zero filler. It's concise while retaining key details.

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?

The tool has a simple schema (1 optional param) and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the main aspects of what the tool shows, making it adequate for selection and invocation. It could be slightly more explicit about the period parameter's effect, but not necessary.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter 'period' with an enum and default, and the description adds no further meaning to it. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description's mention of weekly data indirectly relates to the period selection.

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 uses the verb 'Mostra' (shows) and specifies the resource as the agent's evolution over time, with concrete outputs (success rate per week, error types corrected, learned patterns). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like qa_learning_stats by focusing on temporal evolution, deserving a 5.

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 when to use it (when you need to see agent evolution over time) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the siblings include related analytics tools, the lack of comparative guidance makes it a 3.

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