aya_framework_drift_validar

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. 'Detectar' implies a read-only analysis, but the description does not state what happens when divergence is found, whether anything is modified, whether it returns a report or throws an error, or if VERSION/CHANGELOG must exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, well-formed sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 is too thin. It identifies what is compared but fails to explain the expected behavior, return value, side effects, or failure modes. An agent would not know what to do with the result or what conditions trigger the tool.

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 only parameter, 'versaoEsperada', has 0% schema description coverage, but the description mentions 'versao esperada do pacote', which maps directly to the parameter and gives it semantic meaning. However, it does not clarify the expected format (e.g., semver), whether it is mandatory despite being optional in the schema, or what happens when omitted.

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 'Detecta' and a specific resource ('divergencia entre VERSION, CHANGELOG e versao esperada do pacote'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling validation tools like aya_framework_integridade_validar, the named comparison targets make its scope clear enough.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling validation/audit tools. The use case is only implied by the description (detect version drift), but there is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools.

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