aya_framework_specs_validar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Valida', which implies a validation/check operation, but it does not state whether the validation is read-only, what happens on invalid contracts, or what the tool returns. This is a material gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 a front-loaded verb and a compact list of contract types; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 listed scope is useful and the agent can invoke it without input preparation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the outcome/return behavior of the validation, which it does not. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description focuses on scope rather than parameter details, which is acceptable.

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 verb ('Valida') and a specific resource ('contratos machine-readable herdados do Agents'), enumerating the contract types covered (boot, encoding, log, mirrors, skill frontmatter, error contract, fiscal). It is clear about what it validates, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling validators such as aya_arquivo_encoding_valiar or aya_framework_mirrors_valiar.

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 given about when to choose this tool instead of the many sibling validation tools. The scope list implies it is for validating those contract types, but the description does not state alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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