searchBusca textual cross-content: cursos, posts do blog e episódios de podcast. Retorna até limit resultados de cada tipo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Termo de busca. | |
| limit | No | Resultados por categoria (default 10). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only mentions search and limit. Lacks details on safety (e.g., read-only), authentication, ranking, or behavior on no results. Insufficient for full transparency.
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?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second explains limit. No redundant information. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Adequate for a simple search tool but lacks details on return format or result structure, especially without output schema. Sufficient for basic use but room for improvement.
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 covers both parameters (100%). Description adds that limit is per type ('de cada tipo'), which reinforces the schema but does not provide significant new meaning. Baseline 3.
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?
Description clearly states it performs textual search across courses, blog posts, and podcast episodes. It distinguishes from sibling tools that target single types or list all items.
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?
Description implies usage for cross-content search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus individual list/get tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: course availability vs upcoming classes, detailed vs summary listings, separate tools for blog, podcast, services, teachers, radio, school info, and cross-content search. No overlapping tool descriptions.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, check_), but 'radio_now_playing' and 'school_info' deviate slightly, and 'search' is a single verb. Nonetheless, the naming is mostly consistent and predictable.
15 tools is well-scoped for a school information server covering courses, blog, podcast, radio, services, teachers, and institutional info. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for informational queries about the school: all major content types (courses, blog, podcast, radio) have list/detail tools, real-time availability, search, and institutional info. No obvious gaps for a read-only knowledge server.