context

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Somente leitura' (read-only), which covers the safety profile, but provides no detail about what the tool actually returns, whether it searches the whole codebase or specific docs, what scope its knowledge covers, or any limitations. Given zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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, stating purpose and read-only nature in two concise clauses. However, it includes some filler phrasing ('Consulta livre ao conhecimento do projeto') and could be tightened. It's reasonably efficient but not maximally dense with useful information.

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?

This is a knowledge-consultation tool with an output schema but no annotations. With zero parameter documentation and minimal behavioral disclosure, the description leaves significant gaps: what kind of knowledge domain, what volume/format of output, whether it's code-aware or documentation-aware, and how it differs from 'search'. For a knowledge-query tool, the description should provide more context about its answer scope and nature.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one 'query' parameter, the description offers the example 'o que sabemos sobre autenticacao?' which implies the query is a natural-language question. However, it doesn't specify the expected format, language, or any constraints on the query beyond the example. The single simple parameter partially compensates, but the description adds minimal formal guidance about it.

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 purpose: free consultation of project knowledge, distinguished from task-initiation queries via the example 'o que sabemos sobre autenticacao?'. It clearly states read-only behavior. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by noting this is for non-task queries, though it doesn't name specific sibling 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 gives an explicit usage context ('quando a pergunta nao e o inicio de uma tarefa') and provides a concrete example query. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling context (search, start_task) implies an alternative. The guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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