verificar_autenticacao

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool does not call the API, which is a key behavioral trait (non-side-effect). It also describes what it shows (mechanism and credential completeness). It could add more detail about return format or edge cases, but for a simple inspection tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds the critical exclusion and alternative tool reference. Every sentence earns its 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool displays, what it does not do (call the API), and directs to the sibling tool for functional verification. No further context is needed.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. It adds no parameter-related info, which is appropriate.

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 function: showing which authentication mechanism is configured (Bearer Token or Basic Auth) and whether credentials are complete. It uses a specific verb ('Mostra') and resource ('autenticação configurada'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'testar_conexao' by noting it does not call the API.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent when to use this tool (to inspect configuration) and when not to (to verify actual functionality), directing to the alternative 'testar_conexao' for actually testing credentials. This meets the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion perfectly.

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