buscar_campos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns Id and Key, explains the Key format, and notes the default entity_id=2 for deals. However, it omits pagination behavior, rate limits, and any potential side effects, leaving gaps.

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 concise with a clear opening statement followed by four bullet points. While efficient, the bullet point structure slightly reduces fluidity; still, every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should detail return structure beyond mentioning Id and Key. It also does not cover how multiple results are handled, pagination details, or field filtering behaviors, leaving the agent underinformed for correct usage.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful information for 'entidade_id' (default=2 for deals) and 'chave' (UUID format), but does not explain 'nome' or 'pagina', leaving users to infer their purpose from the schema alone.

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 the tool searches custom fields in Ploomes CRM, uses a specific verb ('buscar'), and provides distinct purpose scenarios like checking existence before creating. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that create or delete fields.

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 explicitly advises using this tool to verify field existence before creation, establishing a clear when-to-use. It also notes the default entity_id for deals, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest specific alternatives.

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