aya_codigo_referencias

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the key behavioral trait that it is 'lexical limited by identifier', which goes beyond annotations by clarifying the search is not semantic and is constrained to identifier-based lookup. This adds valuable context without contradicting the annotations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, with the core capability front-loaded and the alternative direction in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for quick scanning by an agent.

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, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description should at least explain the return format or the meaning of 'limite'. It does not mention what the search returns, how many results may come back, or any error scenarios. Given the existence of siblings like aya_codigo_outline and aya_codigo_semantico_planejar, an agent lacks critical context to decide if this tool meets its needs beyond the basic lexical search capabily.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It hints that 'simbolo' is the identifier (via 'por identificador'), but does not explain the 'limite' parameter at all. The schema provides minimal field names and types but no descriptive text, leaving agents without clarity on how to set limits or what the output might look like. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 performs a lexical search by identifier in code files, using a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('identificador em arquivos de codigo'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from semantic alternatives by advising LSP/Serena for real semantics, which also separates it from sibling tools like aya_codigo_semantico_planejar. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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 gives explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool (for real semantics, prefer LSP/Serena) and implies it is for lexical searches by identifier. While it doesn't enumerate all alternative tools or edge cases, the clear directive about preferring a different approach for semantic needs provides solid usage orientation.

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