verificar_referencias

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 only says 'valida' but does not disclose side effects, return values, permissions, or what happens on failure. This lack of detail limits the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and usage. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the tool's role as a validation gate, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, validation criteria, or how the agent should handle results. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left with significant uncertainty.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description mentions evidence_ids and doc_ids but does not explain each parameter individually or their relationship. For three required parameters, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool validates evidence_ids and doc_ids before the final report. It uses the verb 'valida' and specifies the resources, distinguishing it from other sibling tools that focus on analysis or data retrieval.

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 explicitly says 'Nada deve ser afirmado ao usuario sem passar por aqui', providing a strong usage guideline: use this tool before making any assertions to the user. It implies a mandatory gate-keeping step, though it does not list specific alternatives.

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