aya_dominio_detectar

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the operation is detection-oriented and that it deliberately surfaces multiple domains rather than assuming one stack. It does not mention return format, failure behavior, or any side-effect/permission considerations, but for a read-style detection tool this is a moderate 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 concise sentence with the core action front-loaded. The second clause adds relevant context without excess wording. Minor deduction because the background statement about AyA-MCP's assumption is not directly actionable invocation guidance.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: what 'domains' means in this codebase, how the optional 'consulta' parameter works, what the return value contains, and how it compares to stack-related siblings. It is minimally functional but not fully complete.

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 input schema has one parameter, 'consulta', with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The main description never mentions 'consulta' or explains how it influences domain detection, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 concrete action: 'Detecta multiplos dominios do projeto' and adds a meaningful distinction by saying the MCP does not assume a workspace belongs to a single stack. This helps separate it from single-stack-oriented siblings, though the term 'dominios' is somewhat vague and no sibling is named explicitly.

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 second clause provides useful context: the tool should be used when multiple domains/stacks may exist and one should not assume a single stack. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as aya_projeto_verificar_stack or aya_framework_detectar_rota, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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