aya_framework_skills_autorais_validar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Sem tocar em vendor' hints at a non-destructive scope, but the description never states whether validation is read-only, whether it modifies files, requires write access, or what it returns on pass/fail.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste: it front-loads the verb and target, then narrows scope with the vendor exclusion. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 validation tool the description conveys the core scope adequately. But with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left guessing about the return format (e.g., pass/fail boolean, report of violations, exit code), which is relevant for a validation gate.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to convey and the schema coverage is trivially complete. Per calibration, 0 params earns the baseline 4 — the description has nothing to add here.

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?

States a specific verb ('Valida'), resource ('frontmatter/H1 das skills autorais na raiz .skills/') and scope ('sem tocar em vendor'). This clearly differentiates from search-type siblings like aya_framework_skills_buscar, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides context on what it covers (root .skills/, excluding vendor), which implies when it applies. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like aya_framework_integridade_validar or aya_validacao_gates, nor state when a different validation tool should be preferred.

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