aya_games_assets_inventariar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context beyond a bare statement — it reveals the optional hash-computation behavior and the duplicate-detection intent, and 'Inventaria' implies a non-destructive cataloging operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, what its output/return looks like, or what scope of assets it scans.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The main action and resource lead, the scope qualifier follows, and the optional capability closes the sentence. Every word contributes.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional boolean parameter), which lowers the burden, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should explain what the tool returns and what scope it covers. It does not state the return format, the asset source location, or define 'tipo/tamanho' concretely, leaving moderate gaps an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 — and it does. 'Opcionalmente calcula hashes para detectar duplicados' directly explains the meaning of the sole parameter comHashes (set true to compute hashes for duplicate detection). Since there is only one parameter and the description maps to it clearly, it adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare boolean schema entry.

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 names a specific verb ('Inventaria'), a precise resource ('assets de game'), and the scope of the action ('por tipo/tamanho'), plus a secondary capability (hash calculation for duplicate detection). This clearly differentiates it from sibling inventory tools like aya_framework_inventariar and aya_documentos_inventariar, which target different resource domains.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would call this when it needs to catalog game assets by type/size or detect duplicates via hashes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related siblings such as aya_games_detectar_engine, aya_games_validar, aya_regras_detectar_duplicadas, or aya_projeto_calcular_hash — no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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