Gerar GDD

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 does disclose the key side effect (writes GDD.md into the game folder) and that it returns the content, but says nothing about whether an existing GDD is overwritten, what happens if no decisions exist, or error behavior — gaps that matter for a file-writing 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and artifact, with no filler. Everything stated earns its place.

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?

The return behavior is covered ('devolve o conteúdo') and the schema is complete, so little is missing for invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the overwrite semantics and failure modes of a file-generating tool remain undisclosed.

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 100% for the single 'jogo' parameter, so the schema already documents it as name or slug. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 (compila/gera) and artifact (GDD.md in the game folder), which separates it from siblings gerar_backlog and gerar_prototipo by output type. It never explicitly names those siblings, but the resource is specific enough to disambiguate.

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?

'Compila tudo o que foi decidido' implies a prerequisite — decisions must already have been recorded via anotar_decisao/salvar_etapa — but no when-to-use, ordering, or alternative is stated explicitly. Usage is only inferable, not guided.

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