aya_evidencia_validar_tarefa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the validation criteria. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (boolean, list of missing evidence, error), whether it has side effects, or what happens when validation fails.

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 direct sentence with no filler and the main validation criterion is front-loaded. It is concise and readable, though it sacrifices useful parameter detail for brevity.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a caller: it lacks the result format, parameter semantics, and behavioral guarantees. The core criteria are present, but an agent cannot reliably know how to invoke this correctly or interpret the response.

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 must compensate, but it only loosely relates to 'tiposObrigatorios'. It does not explain what 'tarefa' should contain (ID, name, object), how the optional list interacts with the default [], or whether omitting 'tiposObrigatorios' changes validation behavior.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Valida se') and the resource ('a tarefa') with specific criteria: approved evidence and all required mandatory types. It differentiates this as a validation-style tool from evidence registration/list siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrasing 'Valida se a tarefa possui evidencias aprovadas' implies this is used to check task evidence readiness before approval or next steps, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There are no named alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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