Salvar conhecimento

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Local memory (FTS)', which indicates storage location, but does not clarify whether it creates new entries or can overwrite existing knowledge, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or error conditions. It provides some context (local full-text search memory) but lacks depth expected for a write operation.

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, using two short sentences with no fluff. The 'KNOWLEDGE:' prefix front-loads the domain, and the core action is stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the thin parameter and behavioral coverage.

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 tool has 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain required fields (title, body), the role of optional parameters, or what happens after saving. An agent would struggle to construct a correct call without additional information.

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 only vaguely references the kind enum ('playbook, lição ou padrão'), but does not explain the required title and body fields, or the purpose of tags, ticket_id, or investigation_id. This leaves agents without guidance on how to populate the parameters correctly.

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 records playbook, lesson, or pattern from an investigation ('grava playbook, lição ou padrão a partir de uma investigação'). It specifies the verb and resource, and the context distinguishes it from knowledge_search (which searches) and investigate_* tools (which manage investigations). The 'KNOWLEDGE:' prefix further signals its domain.

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 this tool is used after an investigation to save knowledge, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like knowledge_search or when not to use it. No sibling names are mentioned, and the 'from an investigation' clause is the only usage hint. This is adequate but not explicit.

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