aya_testes_detectar_genericos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states only that the tool detects short, generic, or copied CTs, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it modifies anything, what its output shape is, or any side effects.

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, compact sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to conveying the tool's core purpose.

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, invocation is trivially simple, but the description does not state what kind of result is returned (e.g., list, report, boolean) nor does it define the ambiguous term 'CTs'. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide at least a little more completion around expected outcomes.

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 covers all of them vacuously. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter-level detail; there is nothing for it to explain.

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 a specific verb ('Detecta') and a specific resource ('CTs excessivamente curtos, genericos ou copiados'), clearly pointing to identifying problematic test cases. It does not, however, expand the acronym 'CTs' or explicitly contrast with sibling tools like aya_testes_listar, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 versus alternatives such as aya_testes_listar or aya_regras_detectar_genericas. The description implies a detection use case but provides no context about selection criteria or exclusions.

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