sapiens_studios

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description correctly communicates that this is not a pure read tool: emancipar 'INICIA o Nível 3' and pulls a blueprint to build on the member's own infrastructure. It stops short of detailing side effects such as whether resources are deployed or state is mutated, but it does disclose the open-world, multi-action nature.

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 text is dense and front-loads the overall catalog purpose, but it is a single long unbroken paragraph and repeats much of the action semantics that already exist in the input schema. The usage triggers and studio list earn their place, but the structure could be tighter.

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 five-parameter, six-action tool with no output schema, the description maps each action to its return content (mine returns level/brand/operator/tools; list returns URL+status+tags+mcpReady; emancipar returns identity+module index+foundation guide) and lists covered studios/modules. It is largely complete for invocation, with only minor gaps around error/edge-case guidance.

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 100%, so the schema already documents slug/action/module/studio/publishableId. The description adds action-level context and example slugs, but it largely restates what the enum and parameter descriptions already say; it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with 'Catálogo dos estúdios/experimentos Sapiens + o SEU studio + a Emancipação' and enumerates concrete sub-actions (mine/list/get/publishable_url/emancipar/module), so a model can tell it is the studio-catalog and emancipation tool. It is not a tautology and its domain is distinct from the sapiens_* siblings, though the opening phrase is a noun phrase rather than a single crisp verb.

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 gives trigger phrases: 'Use quando user pergunta "que estúdios existem", "qual o meu studio", ou "quero montar meu site/minha casa própria"'. This is a clear when-to-use signal, but it does not contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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