aya_loop_falha_registrar

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 reveal an important behavior: on the second identical failure it creates a BLOQUEIO-DE-LOOP instead of repeating the same strategy. However, it does not mention side effects like whether the loop block stops execution, how the agent is notified, or whether the tool returns anything.

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, compact sentence that delivers the key behavior efficiently. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes the trigger condition and the resulting state change. There is no waste, though a little more detail on parameters would not hurt.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description captures the fundamental purpose and the loop-blocking rule. However, it omits what 'detalhe' should contain and what output or side effects the agent should expect, leaving some ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly in practice.

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 for both parameters. It only implicitly explains 'assinatura' as the failure signature and says nothing about 'detalhe', leaving the agent to guess what detail information should be provided. This is a significant gap for a required parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: count repeated failures and create a BLOQUEIO-DE-LOOP on the second identical signature. It clearly conveys the tool's core mechanism, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool that clears loop blocks (aya_loop_falha_limpar) to distinguish itself.

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 the tool is used when a strategy fails repeatedly, to avoid wasting tokens. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name the alternative tool for clearing loop blocks. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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