aya_templates_validar_hash

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a relevant behavioral property by specifying that the hash is 'deterministico', but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the expected return value is, or any failure conditions.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. The key behavioral attribute 'deterministico' is placed immediately after the verb, making the core function easy to parse at a glance.

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 simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps: it does not clarify whether the tool validates an existing hash or simply computes one, nor does it distinguish its behavior from aya_projeto_calcular_hash explicitly. These ambiguities could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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 schema defines 'pasta' only as a non-empty string with 0% description coverage. The description adds essential meaning by clarifying that the parameter is a 'template folder', which helps disambiguate an otherwise generic parameter name.

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 uses the specific verb 'Calcula' and names a precise resource: 'hash deterministico de uma pasta de template'. This clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from related siblings like aya_projeto_calcular_hash, which operates on project scope rather than template folders.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no mention of the related project-hash tool. An agent must infer usage entirely from the function's stated purpose.

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