aya_agentes_planejar_equipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a team is assembled; it does not say whether this modifies state, overwrites an existing team, requires prior context, or returns a plan versus persisting anything.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds useful domain examples. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the agent should expect as a result and how to provide the 'consulta' input. Neither is addressed, leaving an important gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool.

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 single parameter 'consulta' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. Since the schema provides no meaning and the description does not compensate, an agent cannot infer what input this tool expects or how to supply it.

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 ('Monta') and resource ('equipe multiagente universal'), and explains that it is driven by the project's real domains with concrete specialist examples. This makes the tool's purpose clear, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling planning tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 context is implied: use this tool when you need to assemble a multiagent team based on project domains. However, there are no explicit instructions about when to use it versus alternatives like aya_contexto_empresa_planejar or aya_template_primeiro_planejar, and no exclusion criteria are given.

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