sapiens_trilhas

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

The description goes well beyond the minimal annotations by disclosing a critical behavioral trait: claim_mission sends proof to the owner's review and never auto-credits Sinapses ('nunca auto-credita por aqui'). It also states identity is always derived from sessionToken, which is important operational context not present in the schema or annotations.

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 dense but efficient, with each sentence adding relevant information about sub-actions, parameters, flows, or side effects. It is front-loaded with the overall purpose and then moves from simpler actions to the more complex claim_mission, though the one-block structure could be easier to parse with explicit formatting.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates well by summarizing what each sub-action returns: title/module/lesson counts for list, module/lesson detail for get, challenge statuses and rewards for list_challenges. It also covers required identity context and the end-to-end flow, making the tool adequately self-contained for correct invocation.

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?

While the schema already documents most parameters, the description adds meaningful context: sub-action semantics, parameter provenance ('o slug vem do list', 'missionId ... vem do list_challenges'), and the acceptable forms of proofText ('link, @handle ou descrição'). This is valuable enrichment beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 defines the tool as managing Sapiens Trilhas and Desafios and enumerates four concrete sub-actions (list, get, list_challenges, claim_mission) with their purposes. It is more specific than the tool name and the action enum, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools.

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 flow guidance: 'list → get; list_challenges → claim_mission', and explains that slug comes from list and missionId comes from list_challenges. It does not discuss when to prefer this tool over sibling tools, but the sequencing and prerequisites are clearly stated.

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