search

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It usefully states 'Somente leitura' (read-only), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe return behavior, pagination, result format, or what types are available for filtering, despite having an output schema. The read-only disclosure is helpful but the description is thin on behavioral detail.

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 efficient sentence that conveys purpose and read-only nature. No wasted words. Though terse, it earns its brevity by being direct. It could benefit from more structure but is appropriately compact.

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 is a search/filter tool with an output schema and 3 parameters, yet the description covers none of the parameters, doesn't explain the types enum behavior, and doesn't describe filtering capabilities. Sibling tools (remember, context) overlap in domain, making usage ambiguity a real concern. With 0% schema coverage and no annotation support, the description is insufficient for confident invocation, especially regarding the 'types' parameter.

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, but it adds zero parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'query' should contain, what 'types' values are valid, or how 'limit' affects results. All three parameters are undocumented in both description and schema properties beyond their titles, leaving the agent guessing about format and semantics.

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 purpose: searching the project's registered knowledge (decisions, entities, preferences, conventions, technologies). The verb 'Procura' (search) plus resource scope is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like remember (write) and context. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings beyond the domain mention.

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 'Somente leitura' (read-only) indicates it's a read operation, which helps distinguish from remember (write). The domain is described (knowledge base of the project). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, and siblings like context could plausibly overlap in purpose without clear guidance on which to choose.

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