tool_segura

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates an API key and returns a greeting, implying a read-only/validation operation, but does not mention error handling, side effects, or how invalid keys are treated. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 redundant information; every word contributes to the 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 simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the output is documented elsewhere. It lacks explicit error-handling or authentication-header details, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds context that an API key is validated, which clarifies why no parameters are needed. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb ('Valida a API Key') and a clear outcome ('retorna uma saudação com os dados do usuário autenticado'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'listar_usuarios' that lists users. An agent can understand exactly what the tool does.

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 implies usage context (validate API key and get authenticated user's greeting) but does not explicitly contrast with 'listar_usuarios' or state when to choose one over the other. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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