aya_framework_detectar_rota

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. The verbs 'detecta' and 'aponta' imply a read-only analysis, but the description never states whether it reads the filesystem, whether it is side-effect free, or what the returned routing information looks like. The arquivosAlvo parameter hints at file access, but this is never disclosed.

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 the main verb first and zero filler words. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the output components (runtime, agent, routers) are listed compactly.

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 output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of both parameters, the return format, and the distinction from overlapping siblings. An agent cannot reliably determine what to pass in 'consulta' or what to expect back.

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 for the schema's silence on 'consulta' and 'arquivosAlvo'. It does not: nothing explains what a 'consulta' should contain (a question, a path, a code snippet?) or what 'arquivosAlvo' targets. The domain/stack wording loosely maps to 'consulta', but this is inference, not explanation.

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 ('Detecta'), a resource ('stack/dominio'), and the output it produces ('aponta runtime, agente e routers minimos do framework'). This gives an agent a concrete idea of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like aya_dominio_detectar or aya_projeto_verificar_stack, which likely overlap on the detection aspect.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no named siblings. With at least three plausible overlapping tools in the sibling list (aya_dominio_detectar, aya_projeto_verificar_stack, aya_framework_inventariar), an agent has no basis to select this one over them.

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