Adicionar finding

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral expectations. It merely states an action (adding a finding) without disclosing side effects, permissions, whether the investigation must be open, or how the finding is recorded. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 sentence with no redundant information. It fronts the action and scope, achieving high conciseness.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It omits required fields' semantics, error conditions, success behavior, and any preconditions beyond the implied 'open investigation'. An agent has to infer too much.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists the allowed 'kind' values (observation, evidence, hypothesis, decision) and implies 'investigation_id' refers to an open investigation. However, it does not clarify 'body' or any constraints on it, leaving some parameters under-documented.

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 states a clear verb (adiciona) and resource (observação, evidência, hipótese ou decisão) to an open investigation. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like investigate_open or investigate_conclude, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus investigate_conclude or investigate_list. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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