sapiens_persona

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

The description discloses state-changing behavior, 'salva no perfil; refazer cria profile novo,' and cost, '450 Sinapses,' plus which operations are static. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint:false annotation; it actually explains the mutating actions well.

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 front-loaded with the product purpose and organized by PRIMÁRIO/SECUNDÁRIO, making it scannable. Each action clause earns its place. The final enumeration of all 16 codes duplicates the schema enum and adds length, so it is not a 5.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the return or effect of every action: my_profile's breakdown and history, list_generated's existing art, generate's archetype art, and get_quiz's 48 questions. It also specifies sequence requirements and the cost of generate, making the tool complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful action-level semantics like the 48-question Likert 1..7 scale, NT/NF/SJ/SP code groups, and server-side scoring. Much of the per-parameter meaning already lives in the input schema, but the description enriches it beyond that baseline.

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 opens by naming the exact domain and resource: 'quiz MBTI + perfil do user + arte dos 16 arquétipos.' It then enumerates each action with its specific purpose, so an agent knows this tool is for MBTI quiz/profile/archetype art operations. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like sapiens_profile or sapiens_sintetico, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Primary vs secondary actions and a suggested workflow are explicit: get_quiz first, collect 48 answers, submit_quiz, then generate 'depois do quiz'; it also notes generate costs 450 Sinapses and list_codes is static. This is clear contextual guidance. No explicit 'use X instead of Y' alternatives are given, so score 4.

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