search_snippets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply states the action ('Busca snippets') but does not mention what is returned (e.g., list of matching snippets), whether the search is case-insensitive, if partial matches are allowed, or any error behaviors. The operational characteristics are left entirely implicit.

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 concise sentence with no redundant filler. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it is under-specified in content, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one; the structure itself is efficient.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks information about the result format, potential limitations (e.g., pagination, maximum terms), or any side effects. An agent calling this tool would not know what to expect in response, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema only describes 'termo' as 'Termo de busca'. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that the term matches against both nome (name) and conteudo do codigo (code content). This goes beyond the bare schema and helps the agent understand the parameter's scope, compensating for the schema's brevity despite 100% coverage.

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 specific verb ('Busca' = search) and resource ('snippets'), and clarifies the scope by specifying the search matches 'nome ou conteudo do codigo' (name or code content). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_snippets (listing) and get_topic (topics). However, it does not explicitly contrast it with search_guide, leaving slight ambiguity about which search tool applies to which resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for keyword-based snippet lookup instead of listing all snippets or searching guides. The context of siblings is present, but the description itself offers no selection criteria.

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