Criar jogo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it detects genre and technology and suggests skills as side effects, and it returns the first-stage guide rather than arbitrary data. It does not state whether/where the project is persisted or whether repeated calls create duplicates, which leaves a gap for a state-creating operation.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the three concrete behaviors. There is no filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does partly compensate by stating that it returns the first-stage guide. It still omits what else is returned or created (e.g., project identifier, persisted state), which an agent needs when chaining into gerar_gdd or status_jogo.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, giving a baseline of 3. The parenthetical '(do jeito que ele falou)' reinforces that the ideia text should be passed verbatim, adding a small nuance but no format or length guidance 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 names a specific verb+resource ('Começa um novo projeto de jogo') and enumerates the tool's distinctive actions: genre/technology detection, skill suggestion, and returning the first-stage guide. This clearly separates it from siblings like gerar_gdd, listar_jogos, and recomendar_skills, which cover GDD generation, listing, and skill recommendation separately.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Começa um novo projeto' and 'devolve o guia da primeira etapa' signal this is a project-kickoff entry point, and 'a partir da ideia do usuário' hints at the required input. However, no alternative is named and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given, so an agent must infer that this precedes guia_etapa/gerar_gdd.

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