verificar_alvo_online

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 discloses that the tool performs a ping check and implies it is a read-only operation that does not cause harm (no destructive behavior). It also indicates that it helps avoid unnecessary scans, which is additional context beyond a simple schema. However, it doesn't specify details like timeout, protocol (ICMP vs TCP), or what happens if the target doesn't respond, but for a simple ping, the coverage is decent.

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 only two sentences, concise and front-loaded. It clearly states the purpose and use case without any fluff. All sentences earn their 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?

Given its simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, has an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains when to use it, what it does, and the purpose. However, it doesn't mention the output format or what a successful/unsuccessful ping means, but the output schema likely covers that. The context signals indicate an output schema exists, which reduces the burden on the description. Overall complete for a simple tool.

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% as the description of the parameter is included in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema already provides a clear example and format, the description's added value is low. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, but the description slightly enhances by indicating the purpose of the parameter (the target to ping). However, it doesn't go beyond what the schema offers, so a 4 is generous; I'll stick with 4 as it meets the baseline and adds a tiny bit.

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's purpose: 'Verifica se o alvo responde via ping' (Checks if the target responds via ping) before starting any scan. It specifies the verb and resource ('ping'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it's a preliminary check to avoid unnecessary scans.

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 to use it as the first verification before any scan: 'Use como primeira verificação para evitar scans desnecessários.' It provides clear context for when to use this tool versus diving directly into other scanning tools. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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