aya_modelo_perfil_execucao

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does disclose meaningful traits: enforcing micro-steps, file limits, budget, and blocking after two equal failures. It does not mention persistence or return behavior, but the core behavioral consequences are clearly stated.

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 dense sentence with a front-loaded action and a colon-separated list of specifics. It is concise and free of filler, though the slash-joined 'fraca/media/forte' is slightly compact.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a workable mental model of what applying the profile does. However, it does not clarify what the tool returns, whether it persists state, or what happens when 'nivel' is 'desconhecido'.

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 single 'nivel' parameter. It maps the enum values roughly to weak/medium/strong discipline and gives behavioral meaning, but it omits the fourth possible value 'desconhecido' and does not explain how each level changes the discipline details.

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 action ('Aplica disciplina de LLM') and names the resource and concrete constraints (micro-steps, file limit, budget, blocking after two identical failures), so an agent can identify it as an execution-profile enforcement tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with a sibling tool, but its function is reasonably distinct among the listed siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The only usage context is implied by the action description itself.

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