Answer questions using hybrid retrieval (vector + lexical) over technical documents, returning cited sources with audit logging and offline fallback via Ollama.
Responde a pergunta com RAG usando o provedor disponível (fallback offline via Ollama).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_k | No | ||
| question | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a fallback offline via Ollama, which is useful, but does not explain whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires prior ingestion, or how provider selection behaves beyond the fallback.
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 clear, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality and includes a behavioral note about the fallback. No unnecessary words, though it slightly sacrifices detail for brevity.
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?
The tool has two parameters, no annotations, and a vague description. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral details such as return format or prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to call correctly in varied contexts.
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%, and the description does not add meaning for either parameter. It implies 'question' is the input, but 'top_k' is completely undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.
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 answers a question using RAG, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search', but the phrase 'Responde a pergunta com RAG' gives enough identity.
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 'ask' versus sibling tools 'search' or 'ingest'. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.