buscar_perfis_usuario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read operation ('Buscar'), describes the nature of the returned fields, and warns about potential variation in integer meanings. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the read-only intent is clear.

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 well-structured with paragraphs and bullet points, front-loading the purpose. It is slightly longer than necessary but remains informative. Every part adds value, though the observational notes could be more concise.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (summary of modules and scope). It also references a sibling for full permissions. The tool has only three parameters, and the description covers the main usage flow, making it sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context about the Id field (usage in other tools) and mentions that nome and pagina exist, but does not explain their semantics in detail. The baseline of 2 for low coverage is increased to 3 because the description provides some functional context, though parameter-specific details are missing.

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's verb ('buscar') and resource ('perfis de usuário'), and provides specific detail on what it returns (summary of enabled modules and visibility scope). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like salvar_perfil_usuario by explaining how the returned Id is used.

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 explains when to use the tool (to search for user profiles) and how to use the returned data (for salvar_perfil_usuario or salvar_usuario). It also provides observational notes about the integer fields, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or give alternatives beyond the sibling reference.

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