aya_memoria_gerar_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'gera' a handoff; it does not clarify whether the output is returned, persisted, or appended to memory, nor does it describe side effects, ordering constraints, or failure behavior. This is too thin for a 10-parameter memory-related tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. One short sentence does not provide enough structural guidance for a tool with this many parameters and no annotation support.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema coverage rate, a single sentence is not nearly enough context. The agent lacks information about required field semantics, optional field usage, expected output format, side effects, and how this relates to sibling memory 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the ten undocumented parameters. It does not mention any of them—neither required fields like projeto/fase/resumo nor optional fields like bloqueios or proxima_tarefa—leaving the agent to guess what each value should contain.

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 ('Gera') and resource ('handoff/contexto de retomada curto para outra LLM'), so an agent can tell this creates a short resumption summary rather than a full report. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with closely related siblings like aya_memoria_obter_contexto_retomada or aya_memoria_criar_checkpoint, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 'para outra LLM' implies the use case: when a short handoff context needs to be produced for another model. But there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites might apply.

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