Buscar arquivos

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Ação somente leitura' and 'Nada é movido, copiado ou modificado.' It adds context about the authorized-folder constraint and the intended user-facing communication style. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the key behavior: read-only search by name/pattern. The user-facing phrasing instruction is an extra but legitimate addition. It is not bloated, though 'Ação somente leitura' and 'Nada é movido, copiado ou modificado' are slightly redundant with each other.

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?

Combined with the fully documented schema and annotations, the description gives enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly: what to search, where, and that it is non-destructive. There is no output schema, so the return format is not specified, but for a straightforward search tool this is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds some semantic nuance by explaining substring vs. glob matching and extension filtering, but it mostly restates what the schema already says and does not add extra meaning for 'limite' or 'recursivo'.

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 clearly identifies the action: 'busca arquivos e pastas por nome' and specifies the scope ('dentro de uma pasta autorizada'). It also adds useful differentiation from mutation siblings by stating 'Ação somente leitura' and 'Nada é movido, copiado ou modificado.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the very similar sibling 'listar_arquivos', so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: searching by substring or glob pattern, optionally filtering by extension, within an authorized folder. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it lacks the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.

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