revisar_projeto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that only problems are returned, with file and line, and warns that opiniao output comes from a local model and should be verified before acting. It omits whether the tool is read-only or how long a run takes, but the trust caveat on opiniao is a genuinely useful behavioral detail.

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?

Front-loads the scope, then output behavior, then usage, then parameter notes; each sentence earns its place. The parenthetical enumeration of suspicious patterns is dense but informative rather than redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief return-value note ('only problems, with file and line') is a bonus rather than a necessity. Combined with the scope list, usage trigger, and parameter toggles, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only read-only/permission behavior is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains two of three parameters: testes=False skips tests, and opiniao=True asks the local code model to read the diff. The required pasta parameter's meaning is left implicit from the name, which is a minor gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-plus-scope: a local review that runs lint, type checks, tests, and scans changes for secrets, conflict markers, leftover debug code, and large files. That enumeration makes it clearly distinct from narrow siblings like rodar_testes (testing only) and segunda_opiniao (model opinion only), since this tool composes all of them.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: use it before reviewing code or declaring a task done. It does not name alternatives explicitly (e.g. when to call rodar_testes alone instead), but the timing guidance is clear and actionable.

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