aya_framework_pacotes_especiais

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that the tool 'detecta' certain packs, without disclosing side effects, return shape, input expectations, or whether it is read-only. The verb implies a non-mutating analysis, but that is left implicit.

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 the key action front-loaded and examples adding useful specificity. It has no wasted words, though it is structured as one sentence with no additional guidance or parameter clarification.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not specify what to provide in 'consulta', what the detection output looks like, or when this tool is preferred over the many sibling pack-related tools.

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%, and the only required parameter 'consulta' is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description mentions domain examples but never explains what the agent should pass as 'consulta', leaving the required input ambiguous.

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 clear verb ('Detecta') with a specific resource ('packs obrigatorios/especializados') and gives concrete examples (Termo de Uso, WAHA, NFS-e Gov, fiscal, Freebuff, Evolution API). It is easy to understand the tool's focus, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling pack tools like aya_framework_packs_listar or aya_framework_packs_selecionar.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as aya_framework_packs_listar or aya_framework_packs_selecionar. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided, so an agent must infer usage solely from the name and examples.

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