buscar_campo_dinamico_existente

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

No annotations are provided. The description only mentions a filter (Dynamic=true) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, require permissions, or disclose other behavioral traits. As a search tool, read-only is implied but not confirmed.

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 very concise: two sentences plus two bullet points. It front-loads the main purpose and adds relevant notes without unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of fields). It does not mention return format or content. For a CRM search tool, this is a gap. However, the sibling set provides context for the ecosystem.

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 0%. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (nome, tipo_id, entidade_id). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add meaning or clarify optionality (tipo_id) and usage context.

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 states it searches for an existing dynamic field ('campo dinâmico') in Ploomes CRM, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions filtering by Dynamic=true, distinguishing it from generic field search tools like 'buscar_campos'.

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 gives clear context: 'Útil antes de montar checklists para reaproveitar campos já existentes' implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though siblings imply alternatives exist.

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