diagnosticar_ambiente

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does state the important no-login trait, which implies no credential side effects, and 'Testa' suggests a read-only diagnostic posture. It does not mention whether Chromium is launched, whether network calls are made, or any side effects beyond the existing output schema.

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?

One short sentence; every phrase adds information. The action and targets are front-loaded, and the no-login qualifier is a meaningful constraint.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with an output schema, the description names the subjects and the key authentication constraint, which is enough to invoke the tool. It is not a 5 because it does not situate the tool among the numerous sibling diagnostics, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds relevant domain context around what is tested.

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 'Testa' and names three concrete resources (Chromium, SICAJUD, and public TJPE queries), so an agent can tell it is an environment diagnostic rather than a generic status check. It stops short of contrasting with sibling tools like diagnosticar_pjeoffice or status_servidor, but the scope is specific enough.

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?

'sem fazer login' implies this is a pre-authentication environment check, offering some contextual guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling diagnostics such as diagnosticar_pjeoffice or status_servidor, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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