aya_framework_workspace_auditar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states what is audited but not whether the operation is read-only, whether it can modify files, what failure conditions exist, or what output/report is returned. The verb 'audita' implies inspection, but that is inference rather than explicit disclosure.

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 an efficient list structure: verb, resource, and concrete checks are all front-loaded. Every word adds meaning and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, a one-line description can be nearly sufficient, and this one clearly names the audit scope. It remains incomplete because it does not explain the behavioral contract (read-only vs mutation), the difference between 'boot' and 'execucao', or what the tool returns, which matters for correct invocation.

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 description does not explain the 'fase' parameter. The phrase 'durante execucao' hints at the 'execucao' enum value, but it does not define the 'boot' phase, how each phase alters the audit, or the meaning of the default. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema description.

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 clearly opens with a specific verb ('Auditar') and a specific resource: operational rules inherited from Agents. It enumerates concrete checks (UTF-8 without BOM, mojibake signs, mandatory memory in tmp during execution), which distinguishes it from sibling audit/validaton tools by content area. It lacks an explicit contrast with other audit siblings, so it is not a 5.

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?

The description implies when to use it: when auditing the inherited operational rules of Agents against the listed criteria. However, it provides no explicit when/ when-not guidance and does not differentiate from alternatives like aya_framework_harnesses_auditar or aya_framework_governanca_auditar, leaving routing to inference.

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