aya_framework_inventariar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and it does disclose meaningful behavior: inventorying is dynamic and avoids loading the entire library into context. It does not detail return shape or side effects, but the verb 'inventariar' clearly indicates a non-mutating cataloging operation.

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 states the action, target, and key behavioral constraint with no filler. Every word contributes to selection and invocation.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description covers what is inventoried and how the inventory is performed. It does not explicitly state the return format and there is no output schema, but the inventory semantics make the expected result reasonably inferable.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly needs to explain no parameter details because none exist.

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 action ('Inventaria dinamicamente') and a precise resource ('o pacote AGENTS/.agents/.skills'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool targets. The qualifier about not loading the whole library further defines scope and separates it from broader context-loading sibling tools.

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?

It implies the use case: inventory the AGENTS/.agents/.skills package when the full library should not be loaded into context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over nearby alternatives like aya_framework_skills_buscar or aya_framework_packs_listar, nor when not to use it.

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