aya_framework_integridade_validar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden — and it only partially delivers. It discloses the core checks but leaves mutation ambiguity ('Recalcula' could mean it rewrites the manifest or merely compares hashes), does not state prerequisites (must INTEGRITY_MANIFEST exist?), and does not describe failure behavior or side effects.

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 sentence with zero filler: the action (recalculate SHA-256) is front-loaded and the detection outcomes follow immediately. Every clause carries information; no wasted words.

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 parameterless tool, the intent is largely captured, but with no output schema and no annotations, the agent cannot infer the result format (report? boolean? exit code?) nor whether the manifest gets updated. The mutation ambiguity and missing return contract are the main gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so per baseline there is nothing the description must compensate for. Schema coverage is vacuously 100% and no parameter semantics are needed.

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 specific verbs ('Recalcula SHA-256', 'detecta') tied to a named resource (INTEGRITY_MANIFEST) and enumerates exact detection outcomes (arquivos ausentes, alterados ou nao manifestados). This level of specificity distinguishes it from similar siblings like aya_framework_drift_validar or aya_templates_validar_hash without needing to open any schema.

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 description gives no guidance on when to invoke this tool, when not to, or which alternative to prefer. Given ~80 siblings with overlapping validation semantics (drift_validar, workspace_auditar, governanca__auditar, mirrors_validar), an agent has no signal to choose between them.

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