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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists documents, but it does not describe what the returned list contains (e.g., IDs, titles, pagination, ordering, or whether it returns the full set or a sample). For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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 sentence in Portuguese that is direct and front-loaded with the core action and object. There is no extraneous information, and it is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It only says 'lists all documents' but does not specify what fields are returned, whether the result is paginated, or any other details an agent might need to consume the output. For a potentially large list, this is a notable gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the calibration rules, when there are no parameters the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters that don't exist, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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 action ('Lista' = list) and the resource ('todos os documentos disponíveis na Wiki' = all documents available in the Wiki). It is distinct from the sibling tools by name and verb (list vs. search/read), but it does not explicitly call out the differentiation, so it loses a point for not addressing the sibling context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the search or read tools. There is no mention of use cases, limitations, or alternatives. An agent would have to infer that list_documents is for enumerating all documents, but it has no explicit instruction on when that is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that reading returns content, but does not mention error behavior for nonexistent paths, response format, or any side effects (though likely safe). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation context.

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 filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It explains the purpose and parameter, but lacks information about return value format or error handling, which would be useful without an output schema to clarify.

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 coverage is 100%, with the 'path' parameter described and an example provided. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (read), the resource (document content of the Wiki), and the method (by path). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_documents (listing) and search_documents/search_content (searching), so an agent can differentiate without extra info.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions like 'use this when you have a known path' or exclusions against using search tools. The context is minimal and relies on inference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and target content, but omits details like case sensitivity, matching behavior, result ordering, or what happens with no matches. This is minimal and does not go beyond the schema.

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, but it is in Portuguese and adds no value beyond the schema. It is not overloaded, yet it also lacks useful context or differentiation, so it is acceptable but minimal.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return format, errors, or how it differs from the very similar sibling 'search_documents'. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect usage or choice of the wrong tool, so more detail is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'query' and 'limit' thoroughly. The description does not add any extra meaning about parameters; it only restates that it searches terms, which matches the schema's existing text. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 terms within wiki Markdown content, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_documents', which appears to have a nearly identical purpose, leaving ambiguity about which search tool to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives like 'search_documents', 'list_documents', or 'read_document'. The description only says what it does, not when to use it, so an agent gets no context for selection.

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

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

There are no annotations to back up the description, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states what is searched (name/path) but does not disclose the nature of the search (exact match, fuzzy), whether results are paginated, what is returned (list of documents? paths?), or any side effects. Since it's a search, it's likely read-only, but that isn't stated. This is a significant gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and scope. No unnecessary words. It is concise and readable. It would earn a 5 if it included a bit more useful context, but for its brevity it is well-structured.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the result looks like (e.g., a list of matches) or mention any limitations. It lacks this. Additionally, because there is a sibling 'search_content', the description should clarify the difference, but it doesn't. The description is too minimal to fully equip an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (query) with a description ('Texto para pesquisar.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's semantics, such as case sensitivity, wildcards, or format. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed 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 specific verb ('busca' – search), a resource ('documentos da Wiki' – Wiki documents), and a scope ('pelo nome ou caminho' – by name or path). This gives a clear purpose and implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'search_content' (which likely searches content). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or articulate the differentiation, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives (list_documents, read_document, search_content). It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate. Without this, an agent may struggle to choose the correct tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'verifies if the server is working' without specifying what the response looks like (e.g., a status field, a boolean, an error-free execution), or whether there are any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that an agent must interpret.

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, tightly worded sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no filler. For a tool with no parameters, this is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what an agent can expect from a call. It only states the check occurs but does not describe the return value, possible error conditions, or how to interpret the result. This is incomplete for a tool that an agent would call and need to act on.

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 zero parameters, the schema has 100% coverage (no params to describe). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning.

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 verb ('Verifica' / checks) and a specific resource (the MCP server), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is also clearly distinct from the sibling tools (which are all document-related), so an agent can tell it apart without extra context.

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 implies it is for checking server health, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Since the siblings are unrelated, there is no confusion, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative naming is provided.

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