aya_memoria_agents_inicializar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the key safety behavior: files are created only if absent, meaning existing files are not overwritten. It does not describe return values or partial-failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter idempotent initializer this is strong transparency.

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 front-loads the action, resource, condition, and location. Every piece of information earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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, no-output-schema initialization tool, the description covers the essential facts: what is created, how many files, the condition, and the target directory. It could be slightly more complete by specifying the actual file names or mentioning what the tool returns, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds context about what is created and where, which is useful even though no parameters exist to explain.

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 ('Cria'), a concrete resource ('os quatro arquivos de continuidade herdados do Agents'), a location ('em tmp/'), and an idempotence condition ('somente se ausentes'). This is clear and distinguishes the tool from the many sibling memory tools as a one-time initializer rather than a read/update/checkpoint operation.

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 it should be used during initialization when the continuity files do not yet exist, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as aya_memoria_criar_checkpoint or aya_memoria_atualizar_estado. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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