aya_rastreabilidade_calcular_cobertura

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that coverage is recalculated, suggesting a mutating operation, but does not state side effects, persistence behavior, required context, or whether any output is produced.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loads the actionable verb, and is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool. Every word earns its place.

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 tool, invocation is unambiguous and the description identifies the domain and action. However, it does not mention expected outcomes, side effects, or how it relates to the validation sibling, making it only minimally complete.

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 the schema fully covers this, so the baseline is 4. The description adds domain context (REQ/RN/CT, traceability, queue) but no parameter details are necessary.

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 clearly states the operation ('Recalcula') and the resource ('cobertura de REQ/RN/CT na rastreabilidade e fila'). It is specific enough to convey what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling aya_rastreabilidade_validar.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no trigger conditions, and no mention of prerequisites. The verb 'Recalcula' implies it should be used when coverage is stale, but that is left to inference.

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