Analisar site existente

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and 'Não altera nada' merely echoes that. However, with no output schema the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing exactly what is detected and returned (section classification, immersion map, recommended impossible moment), letting an agent predict the response shape.

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?

One dense sentence, but the read verb and the 'não altera nada' guarantee are front- and back-loaded sensibly, and the long enumeration earns its length because no output schema exists to carry the return contract.

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 no output schema and only one required parameter, the description covers inputs, the read-only contract, and the returned analysis comprehensively. The gap is the undocumented 'intensidade' parameter, which is the only piece an agent must guess at.

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 67%, so the schema already documents origem and pagina. The description reinforces the accepted origin types but says nothing about 'pagina' defaults or what the 'intensidade' enum (sutil/media/alta) controls, leaving the enum parameter unexplained.

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 ('Lê') and resource ('um site já feito') and enumerates the accepted input forms and the full return set (marca, idioma, SPA detection, paleta, MAPA DE IMERSÃO). This clearly separates it from siblings like criar_site, transformar_site and verificar_site.

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 implies when it applies by listing accepted origins (folder, .html, React/Vue/Vite build, URL), but it never states when to prefer it over transformar_site, verificar_site or ajustar_site. Usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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