buscar_tipos_campo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or how pagination works through the 'pagina' parameter. The description only states the purpose, leaving key behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 short and well-structured with a main line and two bullet points. It is concise, but could be improved by including the parameter information without becoming verbose.

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 existence of a pagination parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the return format and parameter behavior. It only mentions the primary usage, leaving the tool's full context incomplete for effective agent invocation.

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 input schema contains one integer parameter 'pagina' with default 1, but the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning to this parameter, such as explaining it controls pagination.

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' (search) and the resource 'tipos de campo personalizados' (custom field types). It also provides context of use: obtaining the TypeId when creating custom fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'buscar_campos' that deal with actual 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 tells when to use this tool: 'Use para obter o TypeId ao criar campos personalizados.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, though the sibling list contains related tools like 'buscar_campos'.

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