buscar_tabelas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavioral traits: search is partial and case-insensitive on table names. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only or how results are returned, but the output schema is present and the behavior is meaningfully specified.

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, focused sentence that clearly expresses the tool's behavior without unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior. However, it lacks any sibling differentiation or usage context, which an agent would need to decide between this and listar_tabelas/buscar_coluna.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description implies that 'termo' is the partial search string used against table names. It adds some meaning beyond the schema but does not explicitly define termo or its expected format.

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') and resource ('nome das tabelas'), plus matching semantics (partial, case-insensitive). This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like listar_tabelas.

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 instead of alternatives such as listar_tabelas or buscar_coluna. The intended usage is only indirectly inferred from the name and description.

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