aya_projeto_verificar_stack

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 reveals only that the tool compares, but not whether it is read-only, what it returns on match/mismatch, what 'indicios' are, or any side effects or error conditions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It front-loads the comparison action but omits essential definitions of key terms, so the brevity borders on incompleteness.

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 tool with no input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide enough context to replace those missing structured details. It does not explain what CONFIG and manifesto are, where they come from, what 'indicios de stack' means, or what happens after the comparison. Sibling tools do not resolve this ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameters that do not exist; there is no schema ambiguity to resolve.

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 ('Compara') and a resource ('indicios de stack entre CONFIG e manifesto'), so an agent can roughly infer this is a comparison/validation tool. However, 'indicios de stack' is ambiguous (stack traces vs technology stack) and 'CONFIG'/'manifesto' are undefined, which prevents a precise understanding.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling validators like aya_framework_drift_validar, aya_framework_integridade_validar, or aya_validacao_gates. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving all usage decisions to the agent.

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