aya_games_checklist

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Retorna' makes clear this is a read-only operation, and 'universais' suggests a stable/fixed list. However, the description does not disclose potential side effects, whether the list varies by project context, or what the output format looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds information about what the tool returns and for which domains.

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 query with no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool, but it leaves important context unclear: the precise nature of the 'gates', the structure of the returned checklist, and how this relates to generic validation gates. An agent may need additional probing to fully interpret the result.

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 properties, so there are no parameters to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 states the tool 'returns AYA's universal gates' for game development domains, with a specific verb and resource. The listed categories (architecture, assets, input, savegame, performance, network, QA, distribution) make the scope concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like aya_validacao_gates, and the term 'gate' is used without definition.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aya_games_validar or aya_validacao_gates. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the choice entirely implicit.

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