Detalhar uma fase

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/local, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content the annotations cannot: what the returned phase contains and the structured pitfall format (sintoma → causa → o que fazer), which tells the agent what it will actually read.

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 return summary, then the valid ids, then examples — a scannable structure with no filler. The phase list partially duplicates the schema enum, a minor redundancy, but it keeps the description self-contained.

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?

With one enum parameter and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (steps, completion markers, pitfalls). An agent can call it correctly from this alone; only the exact serialized shape remains unspecified.

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% and the enum is fully enumerated in the schema, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond by mapping natural-language questions to specific phase_id values, which is real intent-to-parameter guidance absent from 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 ('Devolve uma fase do caminho') and details the payload: steps tagged VOCÊ/AUTOMÁTICO/JUNTOS, completion criteria, and pitfalls in symptom→cause→action form. That content shape distinguishes it from wa_guide_overview or wa_guide_search, though 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?

The enumerated phase list plus three worked question→phase_id examples give clear guidance on when to reach for this tool. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. 'use wa_guide_overview for the whole roadmap'), so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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