fluig_version

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does disclose the concrete diagnostic surface (env, host, cookies, authenticated user) and frames it as an inspection operation. It stops short of stating that nothing is mutated or whether the session could be affected.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the diagnostic scope before the usage trigger. The trailing "sem adivinhação" is mildly rhetorical but the rest earns its place.

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?

Single required enum parameter, no output schema, so the description is responsible for conveying what comes back — which it does by listing host, cookies, and authenticated user. Adequate for an agent to call correctly, though it does not sketch the response shape in any detail.

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% and the env parameter is fully documented in-schema, including the obrigatório flag and the teste/prod meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific diagnostic purpose and enumerates exactly what it reports: current environment, host, session cookies, and authenticated identity. That is concrete and distinct from the sibling data/workflow tools, though it never names its closest alternative (fluig_ping) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

"Primeira coisa a chamar quando o comportamento não bate com o esperado" gives an explicit trigger condition for when to reach for this tool. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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