braco_liberar

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the whole burden; it does disclose the most important trait, that the action must be gated on explicit user confirmation, and that it operates on a post-emergency-stop state. It omits whether release is reversible, what physical side effects follow, or what happens if the tool is called without consent, which are material for a hardware-affecting 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?

Two short sentences: the action and its trigger first, the consent requirement second. Nothing is redundant and the safety gate is not buried.

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 zero-parameter action with an output schema present, the description supplies the essentials: what it does, when, and the consent requirement. It is slightly thin on post-release behavior and failure modes, which matters given this affects physical hardware.

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 input schema declares zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed beyond the confirmation gate.

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 ('Libera' / release) and object ('o braço') plus the triggering condition ('depois da parada de emergência'), which is enough for an agent to identify the action. No sibling tool touches the arm or emergency stop, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, which keeps it just below the top band.

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?

It clearly states the situation in which the tool applies (after the emergency stop, Ctrl+Alt+P) and a hard precondition (only with the user's OK). It does not name an alternative or say what to do if the user refuses, but no sibling overlaps this function, so no routing ambiguity is created.

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