buscar_tipos_tarefa

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it address potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens if no data matches. The description only states the action and common types, lacking transparency on behavior beyond the basic fetch.

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 concise, with a clear main sentence and two bullet-point observations. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be even more concise by integrating the observations into a single sentence, but current length is acceptable.

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 output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the structure of the returned task types, which would be necessary for an agent to use the result. Considering the tool's simplicity, more details on return format and parameter usage would improve 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%, meaning no parameter descriptions were provided in the schema. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of parameters (id, nome, pagina). It does not clarify how these parameters filter results or what values are expected. This is a critical gap for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 purpose: fetching task types from Ploomes CRM. It explicitly mentions that it is used to obtain the TypeId when creating or updating a task, and provides a list of common types. This differentiates it from sibling tools like buscar_tarefas (search tasks) and salvar_tarefa (create task).

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use para obter o TypeId ao criar/atualizar uma tarefa.' While it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear that this tool is specifically for getting TypeId before task creation/update. This is adequate for a simple lookup tool.

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