glpi_search_problems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a non-destructive search/list behavior and pagination/filter capabilities, but it does not mention pagination defaults, maximum limits, sorting, or response characteristics.

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 a single two-clause sentence that front-loads the main action ('Busca e lista problems') and then compactly enumerates supported capabilities. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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 list/search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves gaps around default pagination behavior, result shape, and when to prefer related tools like glpi_get_problem.

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 100%: each parameter (limit, start, filter) already has a Portuguese description. The tool description only summarizes pagination and RSQL filtering, adding little beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Busca e lista problems', giving a specific verb+resource (search/list problems). It clearly differs from sibling search tools by naming the 'problems' resource and from glpi_get_problem by indicating a list/search operation rather than a single-item get.

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 implies when to use the tool ('search and list problems; supports pagination and RSQL filters') but does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as glpi_get_problem for single-record retrieval or glpi_get_problem_stats for statistics. Usage context is clear but no exclusions are stated.

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