testar_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool tests a saved login without opening a process, but it doesn't disclose what happens on success/failure, whether it makes network calls, whether it modifies anything, or what the output looks like. The negative scope is useful but insufficient for a tool that likely performs authentication checks.

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 concise sentence in Portuguese, front-loading the main action and adding a useful negative scope. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a bit more detail on behavior.

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 no annotations, no parameter description, and a single required parameter, the description is too thin. An agent doesn't know what 'grau' means, what a successful test looks like, or what side effects (if any) occur. The output schema exists but the description still needs to explain the tool's purpose and parameter semantics more fully.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'grau' parameter at all. The schema defines it as an enum of '1g' or '2g' with title 'Grau', but the description doesn't clarify what grau means in this context (e.g., court degree/instance) or how it affects the login test. The description should compensate for the schema's lack of description but doesn't.

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 states a specific verb ('Testa' = tests) and resource ('login pessoal salvo no Keychain'), and clarifies it does not open a process or expediente. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like abrir_login_certificado and verificar_login_certificado, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 this is for testing a saved personal Keychain login, and the negative clause ('sem abrir processo ou expediente') gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like verificar_login_certificado or diagnosticar_ambiente, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a saved login.

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