aya_framework_buscar_conteudo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'pesquisa seletivamente' (selectively searches) but does not disclose whether the search is read-only, whether it follows symlinks, whether it indexes binary files, performance implications of 'incluirPesados', or what happens with large packages. It does not state the return format or whether results are sorted/relevance-ranked.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the searched content types. It is compact and readable, though it could have used the saved space to explain parameters or usage distinctions.

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 is a search operation with 3 parameters, no output schema, and a 0% schema-description coverage. For an agent to call it effectively, it would need to know what the returned results look like, how 'incluirPesados' affects performance/results, and how it differs from aya_framework_skills_buscar. The description covers the core purpose but leaves these operational details 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only explains 'consulta' implicitly via 'pesquisa... conteudo' and says nothing about 'limite' or 'incluirPesados'. The parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory in Portuguese ('limite' = limit, 'incluirPesados' = include heavy items), and defaults are present in the schema, so the description adds minimal but some value over a 0%-coverage schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('buscar' = search) and a precise resource ('conteudo textual do pacote de agentes', including .aya, routers, runtimes, configs and skills). This clearly distinguishes it as a content-search tool within the AYA framework, though it doesn't explicitly contrast it with siblings such as aya_framework_skills_buscar.

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 implies the tool is for selective text search across agent package content, which gives a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over the similar sibling tools like aya_framework_skills_buscar or aya_memoria_grafo_buscar, nor does it provide exclusions.

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