buscar_conhecimento

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a search (non-mutating) operation and describes the source and workflow, but it does not disclose potential behavior such as what happens when no results are found, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. This is a moderate disclosure.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then explaining the workflow. The third sentence about 'base de conhecimento viva' is somewhat redundant with the first two, but it adds a useful analogy without wasting words.

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's complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, all documented in schema), the description adequately covers purpose, workflow, and return value (resolution instructions). It doesn't detail result structure, but with no output schema, this is not strictly required. Overall, it provides a solid, complete context for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 fully describes all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only implicitly references the primary parameter (descricaoProblema) and does not add extra meaning about how incluirInteracoes or quantidadeResultados affect the search. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also provides no additional value.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Pesquisa') and resource ('base de conhecimento do Movidesk (tickets resolvidos/fechados)'), clearly distinguishing this search tool from the sibling ticket-management tools. It states exactly what it does: receives a problem description, searches related tickets, and returns resolution instructions.

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 a clear workflow: 'Receba a descrição do problema, busque tickets relacionados e retorne instruções de resolução,' indicating when this tool should be used. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes its intended use clear as a knowledge-base search rather than a ticket mutation.

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