aya_tarefas_validar_dependencias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It reveals only the surface behavior, detecting dependencies for nonexistent tasks, and does not say whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it reports violations, or whether it modifies anything.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the exact purpose concisely and 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 detection tool, this is minimally viable, but with no output schema and no annotations it does not say what the agent should expect after execution, such as a list of violations, an error, or a success signal. The missing return/error/behavior detail keeps it from being 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 100% schema description coverage, so there are no inputs the description needs to explain. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific action, 'Detecta', and a precise resource: dependências for nonexistent tasks. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling aya_tarefas_detectar_ciclos, which targets cycles rather than missing tasks, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description gives no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives such as aya_tarefas_detectar_ciclos or aya_caminhos_validar_referências. The intended workflow context is left entirely implicit.

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