diagnostico

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real value by disclosing the exact dimensions probed (version, data folder, browser, SUAP session, profile, AI apps, e-mail). It also reveals an output trait – each failing item carries a 'como_resolver' field – which matters because no output schema exists. It does not say whether the check is slow, needs login, or probes network services.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and the enumerated scope, followed by a genuinely useful note about 'como_resolver'. No filler or repetition; the enumeration is long but each item earns its place by defining the check's coverage.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it tells the agent what is inspected and that problems ship with resolution hints. Minor gaps remain regarding runtime duration, whether it requires prior login, and the meaning of the lone toggle parameter.

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 single parameter 'verificar_suap' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description never mentions it, so the agent must guess what toggling it off does (presumably skipping the SUAP session probe). The description does explain that SUAP session is one of the checked items, but that only vaguely implies the parameter's role.

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+resource ('Verifica se o Expeditto está pronto') and enumerates exactly what is checked (versão, pasta de dados, navegador, sessão no SUAP, perfil, apps de IA, e-mail), which makes its scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling 'verificar_atualizacao', whose 'versão' check partially overlaps, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied: a readiness check is naturally run before other operations or when something is broken, and the mention of 'como_resolver quando há problema' hints at troubleshooting. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings (login, verificar_atualizacao, atualizar_expeditto).

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