aya_codigo_semantico_planejar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's explanatory verb aligns with those. The description adds that the tool compares specific semantic-layer approaches, which is useful context. It does not disclose what kind of response to expect (e.g., prose guidance, decision matrix, or plan), but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is a minor gap.

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 sentence with no filler, immediately naming the subject and the alternatives being compared. It is front-loaded and 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 read-only, zero-parameter explanatory tool, the description provides enough context: the decision it supports and the specific alternatives involved. The main missing piece is an indication of the output format, since there is no output schema, but this is not critical for such a simple advisory 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 tool has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this dimension is well satisfied.

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 explanatory purpose: it explains when to use a lightweight native semantic layer versus LSP/Serena/mcp-language-server for full semantics. This clearly distinguishes it from the many code and memory sibling tools. It could be stronger by explicitly saying it produces a plan or recommendation, but the resource and scope are clear.

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 clear context about the decision being supported and names the relevant alternatives, so an agent can infer when this advisory tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly say when to invoke this tool versus other planning or MCP-classification tools, nor does it state any exclusions or ordering prerequisites.

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