aya_framework_montar_contexto_completo

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful behavioral nuance beyond the name: mandatory special packs, budget handling, and heavy-library protection. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, read-only status, or potential impacts on state or memory.

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, dense sentence with no filler; it front-loads the primary action and adds key constraints. While it could benefit from clearer separation or more detail, it is appropriately concise.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many closely related siblings, this description is insufficient. It omits return values, parameter handling, failure behavior, and relationships to alternative context-building tools, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the parameters 'consulta', 'limiteChars', 'nivelModelo', or 'arquivosAlvo'. The term 'budget' may loosely hint at limiteChars, but it is not explicit, and the required 'consulta' parameter is not described at all.

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 the verb 'Monta' and names a specific resource: 'contexto minimo + packs especiais obrigatorios', which differentiates it from simpler siblings like aya_framework_montar_contexto. It does not explicitly reference an alternative, but the functional scope is reasonably clear.

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 exists on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aya_framework_montar_contexto or aya_framework_pack_montar. The description implies it is for a complete context with mandatory packs, but leaves the selection decision to inference.

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