aya_execucao_log_registrar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does contribute meaningful behavior: the write is immediate and the log is append-only, which implies entries are never overwritten or deleted. However, it does not disclose whether the file is created if missing, what permissions are required, the entry format produced, or any error behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste: verb first, immediate action, target file. Every word earns its place, and the key behavioral trait (append-only) is included without bloat.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too thin: the agent cannot infer how to populate verbo/modelo/objeto/arquivo, when to prefer this over sibling logging tools, or what the call returns. The core purpose is clear, but the surrounding operational details an agent needs to invoke it correctly are missing.

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 maps to parameters via "acao" (hinting at verbo+objeto). The meanings of verbo, objeto, modelo, and arquivo, their relationship to the append-only log entry, and how defaults behave are entirely unexplained.

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 verb ("Registra"), a concrete resource ("log append-only tmp/LLM_EXECUTION_LOG.md"), and a temporal qualifier ("imediatamente"), making the core function unmistakable. It is distinguishable from sibling logging tools like aya_loop_falha_registrar and aya_evidencia_registrar by naming the exact target file, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the several sibling logging/registration tools (aya_loop_falha_registrar, aya_evidencia_registrar, aya_memoria_grafo_upsert). Usage context is only implied by the description itself; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria.

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