buscar_opcoes_tabela_opcoes

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

The description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, though the tool name suggests a search. With no annotations to indicate read-only or destructive behavior, the description should have disclosed that this operation does not modify data. It only says 'use to verify', which implies read-only but is not explicit.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose and two short observations. Every sentence adds value: clarification of usage and parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks information about the output format (e.g., returns a list of options). Also, with sibling tools like 'buscar_opcoes_tabela', the description does not clarify the difference, leaving the agent potentially confused. The absence of an output schema means the description should at least hint at the return structure.

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?

The schema only provides the parameter name and type ('Tabela Id'). The description adds that 'tabela_id é o Id da OptionsTable', clarifying the entity it refers to. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but it's minimal and does not cover format or constraints.

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 retrieves options from a pre-registered options table, with a specific verb 'buscar'. It also provides usage context in the notes. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'buscar_opcoes_tabela', which may cause confusion.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use para verificar quais opções já existem antes de criar novas.' This tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as when to use other sibling tools like 'garantir_opcoes_tabela_opcoes'.

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