Guia de imersão (engenharia reversa)

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no mutation, and the description's 'Devolve' is consistent with that. The description's extra content primarily restates the returned sections listed in the enum rather than disclosing behavior beyond the annotation, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-loaded with the verb and kept to two sentences. The long content enumeration is dense but each item maps to a real returned section, so it earns its place, though it borders on a list dump.

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 single-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema and covered safety annotations, the description tells the agent what the guide contains and when to read it. It is largely complete, missing only explicit secao/default semantics.

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% and the single 'secao' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description names the section categories (princípios, anatomia, resgate, power-ups, etc.) that map onto the enum values, adding some meaning, but it never explains that secao selects one section nor how the default ('tudo') behaves, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Devolve') plus resource ('a metodologia') and enumerates the exact content blocks returned (princípios, anatomia, lições, checklist, fluxo), so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It is clearly unlike any sibling such as planejar_assets or revisar_prompt_visual, which act on a project rather than return a reference guide.

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?

'Leia antes de projetar ou revisar uma experiência' gives a clear when-to-use trigger. It does not, however, name an exclusion or an alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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