aya_mcps_recomendar_capacidade

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'sem instalar ou conceder permissoes,' which adds useful context about the tool's non-destructive nature. However, it does not describe the return format, the source of recommendations, or any other runtime behavior, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and immediately adds a relevant safety qualifier, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description provides a clear purpose and safety profile. However, with no output schema and no mention of what the recommendation response looks like, the agent may not know what to expect from the call, and it does not provide guidance on how this tool fits with the sibling MCP tools.

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 only defines 'consulta' as a string with no description, so the description's reference to 'capacidade solicitada' clarifies that the query parameter should contain a requested capability. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it remains minimal and does not provide examples, expected phrasing, or format guidance.

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 ('Recomenda'), a clear resource ('MCPs'), and a scope ('pesquisados por capacidade solicitada'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling MCP tools by emphasizing recommendation rather than classification, listing, or cataloging, and by stating it does not install or grant permissions.

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 phrase 'pesquisados por capacidade solicitada' implies the tool should be used when a capability-based MCP recommendation is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions among the sibling MCP tools, leaving the agent to infer when to pick this tool over aya_mcps_classificar, aya_mcps_listar_permitidos, or aya_mcps_catalogo_referencia.

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