Buscar na conversa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — accent and case insensitive matching, and that older history is loaded first — which reveals a progressive-loading side effect not visible in the schema. It still says nothing about result shape, limits, or cost of loading history.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint and the matching semantics are stated compactly and in priority order.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the essentials of matching and loading behavior are covered, but the return format (matches with context? snippets? ordering?) and the interplay of index/contact/loadMoreTimes are left undocumented.

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 only 50%: 'index' and 'contact' are described in-schema, but 'query' and 'loadMoreTimes' have no description at all. The description mentions nothing about index vs. contact selection or what loadMoreTimes controls, merely gesturing at history loading, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and scope: search words inside ONE conversation, with accent/case-insensitive matching. That scope implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like aspa_search_contact or aspa_read_conversation, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'inside one conversation' — an agent can infer this applies when the conversation is already identified. There is no statement of when to prefer aspa_read_conversation, aspa_list_conversations, or aspa_search_contact, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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