Gerar backlog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little. It implies a file is written (BACKLOG.md) but doesn't say whether an existing backlog is overwritten, whether it is destructive, what permissions or prior state are required, or what happens if no design exists — significant gaps for a generation/write tool.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the transformation and naming the output artifact. Nothing repeats the title verbatim without adding information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the artifact produced, which is the minimum viable set. It nonetheless omits the prerequisite state, overwrite behavior, and sibling routing that an agent needs to call it safely.

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% with a single 'jogo' parameter whose description ('Nome ou identificador (slug) do jogo') is already documented in the schema. The description adds implicit meaning by naming 'o design' as the source material, but gives no parameter-level syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Transforma o design em uma lista de tarefas (BACKLOG.md)') plus the organizing principle ('por marcos'), which is concrete enough to act on. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling generation tools like gerar_gdd or gerar_prototipo, so an agent must infer which generator applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. The description never says the design/GDD must already exist, nor where this fits relative to guia_etapa, gerar_gdd, or checar_escopo.

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