Buscar conhecimento

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'busca' (search), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety, return format, pagination, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose and usage hint in two short sentences. The 'KNOWLEDGE:' prefix is mildly redundant but not harmful; overall it is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return behavior, pagination, and the meaning of 'limit'. It only mentions searching by text and a usage context, leaving essential operational details missing, making it incomplete for an agent to call correctly without further assumptions.

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 50%; only 'query' has a description ('Texto livre. Vazio = mais recentes.'), which already exists in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning for 'query' and says nothing about 'limit'. The 50% coverage requires the description to compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which it fails to do.

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 searches playbooks/lessons by text ('busca playbooks/lições por texto'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling knowledge_save by the action (search vs. save) and mentions the context of 'reabrir bug parecido', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit usage instruction: 'Use antes de reabrir bug parecido' (use before reopening a similar bug). This gives clear contextual guidance for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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