Verificar sintaxe (sem gravar no RPO)

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

The description adds significant value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the 'Sem efeito colateral' nature, the SKIPPED behavior, and the rationale for forcar=true. It fully discloses the tool's effects and limitations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key behavior (syntax check without commit) and then adds nuance. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, parameter meaning, and side-effect behavior. The sibling tools provide additional context for when to use this vs others.

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% and describes both parameters. The description adds context by explaining the default value of forcar (true) and why it is important (forces real validation). It also links forcar to the SKIPPED behavior, which is not in 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 compiles with syntaxOnly, validates sources without committing to RPO, and is safe to use before tds_compile. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it does not commit and mentions the SKIPPED behavior for already compiled sources.

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 'Sem efeito colateral — pode ser usada livremente antes de tds_compile', giving clear guidance on when to use. It also explains the forcar parameter's default to avoid SKIPPED. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when a real compile is needed), but that is implied by sibling tools.

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