aya_framework_mirrors_validar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys what is checked but not whether the tool is read-only, what it returns on success versus failure, whether it raises errors or produces a report, or anything about side effects. 'Audita' implies a non-destructive audit, but that is an inference, not a stated guarantee, and the absence of an output schema makes the return behavior entirely opaque.

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 no filler; the resource being audited is front-loaded and the check being performed is stated compactly. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 is minimally viable: the agent knows what is being audited. But with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without knowing what the result looks like or what remediation to trigger if a mirror lacks the minimum blocks. Some guidance on interpreting or acting on the audit outcome is missing.

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 schema description coverage is trivially 100%, so the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly does not invent any.

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 action ('Audita' - audits) on a specific resource (the Claude/Codex/Gemini/Cline/Windsurf/Cursor/Copilot mirrors) checking for 'blocos operacionais minimos' (minimum operational blocks). This goes beyond a tautology and gives concrete scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many overlapping sibling audit/validation tools (aya_framework_integridade_validar, aya_framework_drift_validar, aya_framework_workspace_auditar), so the agent must still infer what makes mirrors validation unique.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling validation and audit tools. There are no named alternatives, no exclusions, and no conditions like 'when mirrors may have drifted' or 'before assembling context'. The word 'continuam' weakly implies periodic re-auditing, but that is indirect and does not help an agent route correctly among roughly a dozen aya_framework_* validation siblings.

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