password_utils

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any characteristic traits: it doesn't say whether operations are pure, whether they make network requests (important for 'verificar vazamentos'), whether they have side effects, or what permissions are required. The lack of annotations combined with a boilerplate description leaves the agent with no behavioral context.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary words, though it is so terse that it may be perceived as under-specified rather than concise.

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 tool with 14 parameters, multiple operations (including a potentially network-dependent 'verificar' leak check), and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain operation scoping, requirements, or behavioral differences between modes, and provides no output info despite lacking an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 14 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema; it only lists the operations, which are also already enumerated in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 lists verbs (gerar, analisar, validar, criar frases-senha) but is essentially a restatement of the enum values found in the input schema's 'operacao' parameter. It does not distinguish this tool from any sibling or specify its scope beyond the generic function of 'password utilities'.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description merely lists the possible operations, leaving it to the agent to infer appropriate contexts from the schema alone. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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