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 discloses nothing beyond the one-line purpose. It says nothing about result ordering, matching semantics (partial vs exact), pagination, or the read-only nature of the 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is a function of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 search with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the minimum an agent needs to invoke it. It is still thin given the absence of annotations, leaving matching behavior and result shape undocumented.

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 "termo" parameter is documented in the schema as "Termo de busca (empresa, cargo ou tecnologia)". The description merely repeats that same facet list, adding no syntax or matching-rule detail, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Busca experiências profissionais") and names the three searchable facets (empresa, cargo, tecnologia). This makes it distinguishable from siblings in principle, but it never explicitly says how it differs from buscar_projetos, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 use this tool versus buscar_projetos or the listar_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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 full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Busca' implies a read-only search, but the description does not state whether results are paginated, what permissions are required, or any side effects, leaving a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple search tool, though its extreme terseness leaves some contextual gaps.

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 search tool with 100% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the core action and criteria. However, without an output schema or annotation hints, it does not describe return values or behavioral traits, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete.

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 parameter 'termo' is already fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same search scope ('nome ou tecnologia') without adding syntax, format, or matching behavior details, so baseline 3 is 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 ('Busca') and resource ('projetos') with its scope ('por nome ou tecnologia'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like buscar_experiencias because the resource differs, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to avoid confusion.

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 search criteria ('por nome ou tecnologia') imply when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings like buscar_experiencias or listar_habilidades, nor any 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does little beyond noting the README is included in the result. It says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens for nonexistent/private repositories.

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 that packs verb, resource, identification key, and the notable README inclusion with zero 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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: purpose and README inclusion are covered, but error behavior and the distinction from the sibling listing tool are 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%, so both parameters (usuario optional with default, repositorio required) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or defaulting detail beyond it, making the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Busca') plus resource ('detalhes de um repositório específico do GitHub') and adds scope ('por nome, incluindo README'). The word 'específico' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling listar_repositorios_github, though it never names that alternative outright.

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: an agent can infer this is for fetching one repo's details rather than listing them. There is no explicit when-to-use clause, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling listar_repositorios_github as the alternative.

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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whose profile is read (own vs. another user), whether the result is paginated or ordered, or what happens when the profile has no skills. "Todas" implies an unfiltered full list, which is the only real behavioral signal.

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 zero waste, front-loading the verb and the resource. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 of a simple list, the description is nearly sufficient; there is no output schema, but the return (a list of skills) is self-evident from the wording. The only gap is the unstated scope of "do perfil".

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the call targets the profile implicitly rather than taking an identifier.

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 clear verb+resource ("Lista todas as habilidades/skills do perfil"), so an agent immediately knows it retrieves the profile's skills. It does not name or contrast itself with any sibling, but the resources of the siblings (experiências, projetos, recomendações, repositórios) are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given; usage is only implied by the name and the resource it lists. For a trivial zero-argument list tool with no obvious competing sibling this is tolerable, but it adds nothing an agent could not infer.

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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful scope context by specifying "recebidas" (received) rather than written, but it discloses nothing about ordering, pagination, visibility/privacy filtering, or authentication needs for a read-only listing.

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 the resource and its scope front-loaded and no wasted words. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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, zero-risk listing tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description leaves the return shape (fields, count, ordering) entirely unspecified. It is the minimum viable definition rather than a complete one.

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 no parameter semantics to document; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ("recomendações profissionais recebidas"), and scopes it to the profile, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling listing tools, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions an alternative among the sibling tools (listar_habilidades, buscar_experiencias, etc.). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and resource scope.

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 two real behaviors: only public repos are returned and forks are excluded. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, and whether results are sorted or capped, which matters for a GitHub listing.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the filter (exclui forks), and the returned fields with zero filler. Slightly dense in the trailing field list, but no wasted sentences.

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 no annotations, so the description usefully enumerates returned fields (descrição, linguagem, estrelas, tópicos) to compensate. It still leaves pagination, result limits, and the sibling-tool boundary unaddressed for a listing operation.

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 schema already explains the optional 'usuario' parameter and its profile default. The description's phrase 'do perfil' echoes that default without adding syntax, format, or constraint 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+resource ('Lista os repositórios públicos do GitHub do perfil') and adds meaningful scope (exclui forks) plus the fields returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'buscar_repositorio_github', which an agent could easily confuse with this listing tool.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the overlapping sibling 'buscar_repositorio_github'. An agent must infer that this tool enumerates a profile's repos while the sibling likely targets a single repo.

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. 'Retorna' implies a read-only retrieval, but no auth requirements, rate limits, or caching behavior are disclosed. For a zero-parameter read tool the exposure is low, but behavioral context is essentially absent.

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; the value returned is listed immediately.

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 no output schema, describing the returned fields (name, title, contact, professional summary) is genuinely useful and largely covers what the agent needs. Given the tool's simplicity, little else is required.

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 are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-param tool.

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 ('Retorna') and resource (profile summary) and enumerates the content (nome, título, contato, resumo profissional). The resource is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (experiences, skills, projects, recommendations, repos), though it never explicitly differentiates itself from them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The intended usage (fetch the candidate's headline profile data) is strongly implied by the name and description, but there is no routing to or from sibling tools.

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