buscar_formulario_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating it 'retorna' data and does not mention side effects, but it does not explicitly state idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. It lists available FieldKeys but lacks details on response structure or error conditions.

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 front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, followed by structured bullet points. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted prose.

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?

While the description covers the basics (purpose, parameter guidance, list of FieldKeys), it lacks details about the return format or structure. With no output schema, the agent may need more information about how sections and fields are represented. The tool is moderately simple, so gaps are not critical but noticeable.

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 add meaning. It explains formulario_rapido returns the QuickForm, and it contextualizes pipeline_id by pointing to buscar_pipeline. This adds sufficient value beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 verb 'buscar' and resource 'estrutura do formulário de criação/edição de negócios de um pipeline', and specifies the return of sections and fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing separate editing tools and the prerequisite tool buscar_pipeline.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains the prerequisite (use buscar_pipeline to get pipeline_id), describes the parameter behavior (formulario_rapido=True for QuickForm), and points to alternative tools for editing (salvar_secao_formulario_pipeline, salvar_campo_formulario_pipeline). This clearly differentiates usage from writing tools.

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