buscar_field_paths

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and a note about entity_id, but omits whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The lack of behavioral details is a significant gap.

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 brief and well-structured: a primary sentence, followed by bullet-pointed observations. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 has 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and a use case, but does not explain the output format or error scenarios. Given its simplicity, it meets minimum viability but lacks completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by noting that entity_id=2 corresponds to Deal, but does not explain other possible values or format. This provides partial clarity, enough to lift from baseline 1 to 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for available FieldPaths from an entity in Ploomes CRM, and clarifies that entity_id=2 represents Deal. This distinguishes it from siblings like buscar_field_key_por_field_id, which targets a specific field key.

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 advises using this tool to investigate possible paths before building checklist items, providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the given scenario offers sufficient guidance for a focused tool.

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