aya_validacao_gates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only computation, but it does not state side effects, return format, what a 'gate' is, or how '#Saida' is resolved. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, relying on unexplained jargon and leaving too much unsaid.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameter definitions, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to understand what the tool consumes, produces, or how it fits into the validation workflow. The mention of '#Saida' hints at context but does not explain it.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is vacuously 100%, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds slight semantic context by naming '#Saida' as the implicit subject of the calculation, which is the only meaningful information available.

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 ('calcula') and a named resource ('gates reais da #Saida'), which gives some surface-level clarity. However, 'gates' is unexplained domain jargon and there is no explicit contrast with sibling tools like aya_validacao_aprovar_saida, leaving the operational scope ambiguous.

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 the many validation-related siblings, nor any mention of preconditions, context, or alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the terse description.

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