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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the observable outcome (it is recorded in the game's history and shows up in the GDD), which is genuinely useful since neither schema nor annotations convey it. However, it says nothing about whether the entry can be edited/removed, whether the game must already exist, or what the call returns.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the GDD side effect in a short parenthetical. Nothing is redundant and there is no padding.

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 two-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what is stored and where it surfaces, which is the minimum an agent needs. It still leaves gaps on failure modes (unknown 'jogo'), prerequisites relative to criar_jogo, and the nature of the free-text 'texto' field.

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 only 50%: 'jogo' is documented in the schema but 'texto' has no description. The phrase 'decisão, ideia solta ou mudança de rumo' partially compensates by telling the agent what content belongs in the undocumented 'texto' parameter, but it gives no length, format, or free-text expectations beyond that.

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 concrete verb+resource: stores a decision/loose idea/change of direction into the game's history (the GDD). That is specific enough to separate it from siblings like gerar_gdd or salvar_etapa, though it never names or explicitly excludes any alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied by the enumerated content types ('decisão, ideia solta ou mudança de rumo'), which hints at when this is the right tool. There is no explicit when-to-use vs salvar_etapa/gerar_gdd guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. game must already exist), and no exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at output content (common risks) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or whether it modifies any state. This leaves important behavioral context unspecified.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and contains no redundant information. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose and some output content (risk areas), but it omits usage context, behavioral traits, and return format details. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the single 'jogo' parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb 'Avalia' (evaluates) and the resource being evaluated: whether the MVP fits the deadline and team, plus common risks. This distinguishes it from siblings like gerar_gdd or criar_jogo, but it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or the appropriate stage in the workflow. Usage is only implied by the name and function.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it detects genre and technology and suggests skills as side effects, and it returns the first-stage guide rather than arbitrary data. It does not state whether/where the project is persisted or whether repeated calls create duplicates, which leaves a gap for a state-creating operation.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the three concrete behaviors. There is no filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does partly compensate by stating that it returns the first-stage guide. It still omits what else is returned or created (e.g., project identifier, persisted state), which an agent needs when chaining into gerar_gdd or status_jogo.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, giving a baseline of 3. The parenthetical '(do jeito que ele falou)' reinforces that the ideia text should be passed verbatim, adding a small nuance but no format or length guidance beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Começa um novo projeto de jogo') and enumerates the tool's distinctive actions: genre/technology detection, skill suggestion, and returning the first-stage guide. This clearly separates it from siblings like gerar_gdd, listar_jogos, and recomendar_skills, which cover GDD generation, listing, and skill recommendation separately.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Começa um novo projeto' and 'devolve o guia da primeira etapa' signal this is a project-kickoff entry point, and 'a partir da ideia do usuário' hints at the required input. However, no alternative is named and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given, so an agent must infer that this precedes guia_etapa/gerar_gdd.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little. It implies a file is written (BACKLOG.md) but doesn't say whether an existing backlog is overwritten, whether it is destructive, what permissions or prior state are required, or what happens if no design exists — significant gaps for a generation/write tool.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the transformation and naming the output artifact. Nothing repeats the title verbatim without adding information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the artifact produced, which is the minimum viable set. It nonetheless omits the prerequisite state, overwrite behavior, and sibling routing that an agent needs to call it safely.

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 100% with a single 'jogo' parameter whose description ('Nome ou identificador (slug) do jogo') is already documented in the schema. The description adds implicit meaning by naming 'o design' as the source material, but gives no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Transforma o design em uma lista de tarefas (BACKLOG.md)') plus the organizing principle ('por marcos'), which is concrete enough to act on. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling generation tools like gerar_gdd or gerar_prototipo, so an agent must infer which generator applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. The description never says the design/GDD must already exist, nor where this fits relative to guia_etapa, gerar_gdd, or checar_escopo.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect (writes GDD.md into the game folder) and that it returns the content, but says nothing about whether an existing GDD is overwritten, what happens if no decisions exist, or error behavior — gaps that matter for a file-writing tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and artifact, with no filler. Everything stated earns its place.

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?

The return behavior is covered ('devolve o conteúdo') and the schema is complete, so little is missing for invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the overwrite semantics and failure modes of a file-generating tool remain undisclosed.

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% for the single 'jogo' parameter, so the schema already documents it as name or slug. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 (compila/gera) and artifact (GDD.md in the game folder), which separates it from siblings gerar_backlog and gerar_prototipo by output type. It never explicitly names those siblings, but the resource is specific enough to disambiguate.

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?

'Compila tudo o que foi decidido' implies a prerequisite — decisions must already have been recorded via anotar_decisao/salvar_etapa — but no when-to-use, ordering, or alternative is stated explicitly. Usage is only inferable, not guided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits — the output is a self-contained HTML5 file that runs in the browser without installation — but omits side effects such as where the file is written, whether it overwrites an existing prototype, and what the response returns.

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 what the tool produces, then model options, then per-parameter detail. The prose is dense and slightly run-on but every clause carries reference value, and there is no filler.

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 complex tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete on inputs and output format. It is thinner on the call's side effects (save location, return payload), which are the main remaining gap.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates valid 'modelo' values, gives concrete 'ajustes' keys (forcaPulo, gravidade, vidas, etc.), defines the 'fases' tile legend (# chão, =, *, !, E, F, P), and sketches the 'cenas' object shape. This adds substantial meaning beyond the near-empty schema, though it still leaves some ambiguity about how modelo drives required fields.

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 and artifact — it generates a playable HTML5 prototype that opens directly in the browser with no installation — and scopes it via game genre/name/pitch/goal/palette. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like gerar_gdd (design doc) and criar_jogo (game creation) without opening either schema.

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 usage by tying parameters to models ('fases' for plataforma, 'cenas' for narrativa), which tells the agent when each field applies. However, it never states when to choose this tool over gerar_gdd or criar_jogo, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, so routing guidance is only implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the returned sections and the fallback behavior when 'jogo' is absent, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, caching, or error behavior for an invalid etapa value.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose and returned contents front-loaded before the optional-parameter nuance. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only content tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned structure and the fallback case well. Only the absence of guidance on invalid etapa values or error handling keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: omitting the optional 'jogo' yields a generic guide, which the schema's one-line 'Nome ou identificador (slug) do jogo' does not convey. It does not extend the meaning of 'etapa' beyond the schema's enumerated list.

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) and resource (roteiro de uma etapa) and enumerates the payload an agent will get: objetivo, perguntas, campos, dicas, skills. It is clearly a content-retrieval tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like listar_etapas or status_jogo.

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 sentence about omitting 'jogo' implies when the generic guide applies, giving some conditional context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus listar_etapas, salvar_etapa, or recomendar_skills, so routing is left to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that a plain call returns full content and a 'referencia' call returns an auxiliary file, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when a skill/file is missing, or return format.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the optional parameter noted second. No wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description roughly covers the return intent ('conteúdo completo'). However, with zero annotation coverage it should say more about permissions, error cases, and the distinction between the full-skill and auxiliary-file reads.

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 50%: 'referencia' is documented in the schema while 'nome' is not. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'referencia' reads an auxiliary file of the skill, but it never explains 'nome' beyond the obvious implication that it names the skill.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it loads the complete content of a skill (SKILL.md) and, optionally, reads an auxiliary file. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like listar_skills and recarregar_skills, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus alternatives such as listar_skills or recarregar_skills. Usage is only implied by the verb 'carrega'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lista' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not disclose return format, ordering, or whether the stage list is static or dynamic.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though arguably under-specified rather than padded.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but not misleading. It omits what the returned stages contain and how they relate to siblings, leaving gaps an agent might need filled.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 and resource ('Lista todas as etapas do pipeline de criação de jogos'), making the action clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from related siblings like guia_etapa, salvar_etapa, or listar_jogos, which share the same pipeline domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Lista'.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (in-progress games plus per-game progress) and is implicitly a read-only operation, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether completed games appear.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the scope. It is efficient, though extremely terse relative to the other sibling tools' likely scope.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is listed and what each entry contains. Only ordering/pagination and the treatment of finished games remain unstated, which are minor.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate in the schema, and it correctly avoids inventing options.

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 ("Lista") and resource ("jogos") with a scope qualifier ("em andamento") and the content returned ("progresso de cada um"). It is easy to tell apart from criar_jogo or status_jogo by implication, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the read-side listing of games, and "em andamento" hints that finished games are excluded. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to status_jogo for inspecting a single game.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'lista' implies a non-destructive read, but the description says nothing about return size, pagination, whether the community catalog is network-fetched (latency/availability), or authentication, all of which matter for a tool that merges own and remote skills.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and its scope front-loaded and the optional filters trailing. No redundancy or filler.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (own and community skills) and how to narrow it. It is nearly sufficient, with only the behavioral details of result size and remote-source handling left unstated.

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% and both parameters carry their own examples ('pulo plataforma', 'nucleo/genres/godot'). The description restates that filtering is optional but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Lista as skills disponíveis') and scopes it to own plus community skills, which helps an agent understand the breadth of the result set. It does not differentiate itself from near-neighbors such as recomendar_skills or recarregar_skills, so an agent must still infer the division of labor from sibling names.

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 only usage hint is that filtering by category or search is optional, which is parameter behavior rather than when-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over recomendar_skills or recarregar_skills, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: it makes newly added skills visible without a server restart. However, it says nothing about whether the reload interrupts anything, how costly it is, or what happens if a skill is malformed. Some useful behavior is conveyed but coverage is partial.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and tucks the usage cue into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted. It is tightly scoped and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and trigger, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not clarify what signal confirms the reload succeeded or when the reload is unnecessary, leaving a small but real gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema shows. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 're-reads the skill folders' (Relê as pastas de skills). This is distinct from sibling skill tools like listar_skills, ler_skill, and recomendar_skills, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them. An agent can still infer the action is a re-scan rather than a listing.

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?

It states a clear trigger condition: use it after adding a new skill without restarting the server ('use depois de adicionar uma skill nova sem reiniciar o servidor'). That is concrete when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the result (genre, technology, skills to read), which partially substitutes for the missing output schema, and the tool reads as a non-mutating recommendation. It says nothing about determinism, whether a request can mismatch, or how the returned skills are meant to be consumed.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the interpretive verb front-loaded and zero filler. It earns its place, though it is minimal enough that a short routing clause could have been added without bloat.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does and roughly what it returns, which is the minimum viable. It omits how the output connects to sibling tools (ler_skill, listar_skills) and any indication of output format, so it is adequate but gapped.

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?

There is a single required parameter ('pedido') with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema explains nothing. The description partially compensates by stating the input is a natural-language request, clarifying expected format, but adds no detail on length, language, or example content.

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 gives a specific verb ('Interpreta') plus concrete outputs (gênero, tecnologia, skills a serem lidas), so the agent understands what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as listar_skills or ler_skill, which it feeds into, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'um pedido em linguagem natural' implies the use case: free-form user requests rather than explicit skill names. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g., that listar_skills/ler_skill handle the follow-up lookup), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it merges rather than replaces, and the step only closes when required fields are filled. It does not disclose permissions, validation-failure behavior, or what happens on partial failure, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the merge behavior and the concluir condition front-loaded. Efficient and readable, though it could omit the trailing clause without losing much.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior, parameters, and results. It handles merge semantics and the completion gate but omits error handling, return shape, and the meaning of the 'etapa' identifier, which is thin for a 4-param mutation with nested objects.

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 50%; 'etapa' and 'concluir' have no schema descriptions. The description compensates for 'concluir' by explaining its confirmation-then-close semantics and touches the merge behavior of 'dados', but says nothing about 'jogo' or 'etapa', so it only partially fills the gap.

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 and resource: 'Registra as decisões do usuário em uma etapa', with the parenthetical '(mescla com o que já existe)' clarifying the write semantics. It is distinguishable from siblings like anotar_decisao and guia_etapa, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Gives one explicit usage condition: 'Use concluir=true depois que o usuário confirmar o resumo'. However it says nothing about when to prefer this tool over anotar_decisao, guia_etapa, or listar_etapas, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied at best.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what is returned (checklist, per-stage gaps, next step), which implies a read-only operation, but never states that it is non-mutating, nor how errors or missing games are handled.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary output (the stage checklist) followed by the two value-adding details (gaps and next step). No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, read-only-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential return content an agent needs to decide relevance. It only misses edge cases like invalid or nonexistent game identifiers.

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% and the single 'jogo' parameter is documented as name or slug in the schema. The description implies the whole tool is scoped to one game but adds no format or lookup semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Mostra o checklist de etapas do jogo') plus the scope of what it reveals (gaps per stage, next step), which is more specific than a bare status label. It implicitly separates itself from listar_etapas/guia_etapa by framing output as progress rather than a plain listing, but names no sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative such as listar_etapas or guia_etapa. The agent must infer that this is the progress-checking tool from the described output alone.

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