aya_documentos_inventariar

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key safety behavior—no content is sent—and indicates that only size and hash are gathered, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether it scans subfolders, or whether any local state is modified.

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, resource, computed fields, and a critical exclusion. It contains no filler and every phrase contributes information.

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 metadata inventory tool, this is minimally viable: it states what is inventoried, what is computed, and that content is not sent. But without an output schema or annotations, it could be more complete by describing the parameter, the return format or location of results, and whether the operation is safe and read-only.

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 explain the 'pasta' parameter, but it only mentions '#Documentos', which is the default value. The role of 'pasta' as the target folder to inventory is implied by its name and default, but not explicitly described, leaving an agent without clear parameter semantics.

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 ('Inventaria'), names the resource ('#Documentos'), and specifies what is computed ('tamanho e hash') while explicitly stating what it does not do ('sem enviar conteudo'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling inventory tools like aya_framework_inventariar and aya_games_assets_inventariar.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or preconditions. The phrase 'sem enviar conteudo' implies a safe metadata-only use case, but this is not developed into actionable selection guidance.

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