aya_rastreabilidade_validar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Validates' implies a check but doesn't state whether it has side effects, what constitutes success/failure, or what output is produced. The agent cannot predict the tool's behavior beyond a generic validation action.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a tool without parameters and an output schema.

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?

Although the tool has no parameters and no output schema, it is a validation operation. The description lacks any indication of what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, errors, report) or how the result is communicated. An agent cannot fully understand the outcome of calling this tool, making the context incomplete.

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, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there are no gaps to penalize.

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 the specific action 'validates' on the resource 'traceability' with a scope of 'minimal structural coverage'. It is clear and distinct from the sibling 'aya_rastreabilidade_calcular_cobertura' (calculate coverage) because 'validate' vs 'calculate' implies different operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculating coverage. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description provides no decision criteria for an agent.

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