Records a study doubt with its related module for later review; use only when the user explicitly asks to save a doubt.
Registra uma dúvida de estudo para revisar depois. Chame apenas quando o usuário pedir explicitamente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| texto | Yes | A dúvida em si | |
| modulo | Yes | Módulo relacionado à dúvida |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the write-but-non-destructive profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety bar is lower. The description adds the purpose of the record ('para revisar depois') but says nothing about permissions, what is returned (e.g., an identifier), or duplicate-handling given idempotentHint=false.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what is created and when to invoke it. The only soft gap is not stating what the call returns or whether duplicates are rejected, which matters slightly given idempotentHint=false.
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 100%, documenting both 'texto' and 'modulo' with constraints (min/max length), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or example guidance beyond the schema, so it does not earn more.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Registra uma dúvida de estudo') plus the downstream intent ('para revisar depois'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like buscar_anotacao or ler_anotacao, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Chame apenas quando o usuário pedir explicitamente' is an explicit gating condition for invocation, which is unusually clear guidance. It names no alternative tool or exclusion relative to the annotation-reading/listing siblings, so it lacks the alternatives routing that a 5 requires.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.