aya_framework_governanca_auditar

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the gate is read-only, what happens on failure, whether it returns a report or exception, or any side effects. Merely listing covered areas is insufficient.

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 no fluff, effectively front-loading the scope. However, it lacks any structured usage or behavioral 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?

As an aggregate tool, it likely orchestrates multiple sub-audits, yet the description gives no indication of what the gate returns, how pass/fail is determined, or how the expected version parameter interacts with the checks. With no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'versaoEsperada' but the description does not mention it or explain its purpose. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fails to do so.

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 tool as an aggregate gate covering multiple framework aspects (integrity, version drift, harnesses, specs, skills, mirrors). It distinguishes itself from the individual validators among siblings by being an aggregate, which gives purpose clarity.

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 on when to use this aggregate gate versus the individual validators like aya_framework_integridade_validar or aya_framework_drift_validar. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or recommended scenarios.

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