Gerar roteiro de teste manual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the routine is step-by-step, covers keyboard and screen reader, and importantly states that execution and verdict remain human, preventing misuse as an automated testing tool. It could add more about output structure, but the core behavioral constraint is clearly conveyed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main output and then adds the crucial human-in-the-loop caveat, making every sentence valuable.

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 adequately defines the deliverable and its scope. It could further describe the expected structure of the routine or behavior for invalid criteria, but the essential information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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 criterion is already documented with an example. The description confirms the criterion is a WCAG criterion but does not add significant additional meaning 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it generates a step-by-step manual test routine for a WCAG criterion, with explicit mention of keyboard and screen reader coverage. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_criterion_details and search_criteria_by_keyword, since only this tool produces a test routine.

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 when to use the tool: when a manual WCAG test routine is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_criterion_details for criterion information, so usage guidance 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.