Diagnóstico das credenciais

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently states 'sem alterar nada' (without changing anything), marking it as read-only, and enumerates the checks performed. However, it does not disclose potential network calls, rate limits, or the exact output format, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines scope and non-destructive behavior; the second gives a concrete use case, making it efficient and well-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?

For a simple diagnostic tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains purpose, non-mutation, and when to use it. The lack of return format details is a minor gap, but the stated checks and usage guidance are sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is complete and the description adds context about the checks performed (file existence, completeness, token acceptance), going beyond the empty schema. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4.

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 explicitly states 'Verifica a configuração de acesso ao Google' (checks Google access configuration) and lists three specific checks: credential file existence, completeness, and refresh token acceptance. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which all handle form/question operations.

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?

Provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Use quando alguma ferramenta falhar por autenticação' (use when any tool fails due to authentication). It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the stated scenario is clear and actionable.

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