aya_regras_detectar_genericas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool detects problematic RNs; it does not say whether the operation is read-only, what scope it scans, whether it has side effects, or what the response looks like. This is a meaningful gap for a zero-parameter analysis 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 a single, directly front-loaded sentence with no filler: it opens with the verb and immediately gives the object. This is appropriate for the simple, parameterless interface and 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what the tool scans, what it returns, and how it compares to related tools like aya_regas_detectar_duplacadas or aya_testes_detectar_genéricos. None of that is present. The zero-parameter interface makes invocation easy, but selection and interpretation of results remain under-specified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully handles arguments. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Detecta') and a specific object ('RNs excessivament cortas, genericas ou copiadas'), making it clear the tool finds short, generic, or copied business rules. However, 'RNs' is left unexplained and the description does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling aya_regas_detectar_duplacadas, with which there is some overlap.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need to detect problematic business rules in the project. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tools to choose, so the agent has to infer context from sibling names.

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