encontrar_caminho

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool finds paths with a confidence filter, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output structure represents, whether it mutates data, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema does not surface in the description, leaving behavior largely undefined.

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, which is concise, but it is not structured to maximize informativeness. It front-loads the core action but omits essential context. While brevity is valued, the sentence does not earn its place by conveying all necessary details; it could be expanded with usage guidance or parameter hints.

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 2 required parameters and an output schema, but the description does not explain how the output relates to the input, what the confidence levels imply, or how the tool integrates with the catalog system. The description leaves out crucial details that an agent would need to call the tool correctly, such as whether the path is directed, what 'best' means in terms of ranking, or if there are any constraints on the tables.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for 'tabela_origem' and 'tabela_destino'. The description does not clarify the expected format, constraints, or semantics of these parameters beyond their names. It merely implies they are tables, but does not explain how they should be specified (e.g., exact table names, case sensitivity) or what 'path' means in their context.

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 action (finds best candidate relationship paths) and a specific filtering criterion (confidence MEDIUM or HIGH). The verb 'encontra' and resource 'caminhos de relacionamentos candidatos' are explicit, and the confidence filter adds precision. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'inferir_relacionamentos', which may also identify relationships, so it is not fully differentiated.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'inferir_relacionamentos' or 'gerar_join'. It does not mention prerequisites, scope, or any conditions that would lead an agent to prefer this tool. This is a significant omission given the overlapping sibling tools.

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