validate_agent_schemas

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

Annotations already state read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: what gets checked, the three return buckets (valid, invalid, warnings), and the surface-crossing logic with named warning reasons (blocked_by_csp, not_in_surface). It explains the real-world consequence (agent 'teaching' a blocked tool and answering 'ferramenta indisponível').

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the checks, return values, and the deeper surface rationale. It is somewhat dense but every sentence contributes and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely (valid schemas, invalid schemas, warnings, surface.cited_outside with reasons). Combined with annotations and a single documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single agent_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as the agent UUID. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('valida') and scope ('todos os schemas de um agente') and expands into the concrete checks performed (api_config, endpoints, auth). This distinguishes it from the similarly named sibling validate_schema_data, which validates a single schema's data rather than a whole agent's schema set.

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?

'útil antes de publicar o agente' gives a clear trigger context for when to run it. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. vs validate_schema_data), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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