aya_contexto_empresa_planejar

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 does reveal a useful conditional behavior and the 'sem abrir a biblioteca pesada inteira' detail, but it does not clarify whether the tool writes files, mutates state, requires permissions, or what the output of 'planeja contexto' is. For a tool with no annotation safety profile, this leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 efficient sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and the conditional behavior placed second. It contains no filler or repetition. Slight jargon such as 'framework Agents' and 'biblioteca pesada' could be clearer, but the structure is compact and readable.

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 five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this tool needs a more complete description. It does not explain what a 'contexto seletivo' consists of, how the parameters shape the result, or what the tool returns. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly purely from this text.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the five parameters, but it mentions none of them. Param names like 'consulta', 'limiteChars', and 'arquivosAlvo' hint at meaning, yet the description never explains how they relate to 'planejar contexto seletivo'. The parameter semantics are therefore mostly left to inference.

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, 'Planeja', and resource, 'contexto seletivo', and adds scope 'para qualquer area atendida pela empresa'. It also outlines a secondary action, assembling a relevant package when the Agents framework is available, which helps distinguish it from heavier context tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools, so differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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?

It provides one clear condition: when the Agents framework is available, it mounts the package without opening the heavy library. This implies a selective-context use case versus a full-context tool, but it does not state when not to use it or name a preferred alternative among the many sibling tools. The guidance is therefore contextual but lacks explicit exclusions.

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