confirmar_leitura_intimacao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: dry-run mode by default, requirement for explicit confirmation, irreversibility, starts legal deadline, returns simulation if safety conditions not met. All behavioral traits are transparently stated.

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 well-structured with ASCII art and bullet points, front-loading the risk and purpose. It is longer than average, but every sentence is informative. Minor room for trimming, but the thoroughness is justified by the high-risk nature.

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 (high-risk, double gate, auth requirements), the description covers all necessities: use case, prerequisites, safety mechanism, output behavior (simulation vs real), and irreversibility. It is complete without needing output schema details.

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 100%, yet the description adds significant value: 'confirmar' parameter is tied to the safety gate and operator awareness, 'id_intimacao' notes it comes from a sibling tool, and 'numero_processo' shows an example CNJ format. This goes well beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 confirms reading a judicial summons (intimação) via DJe, with specific verb ('confirmar') and resource ('leitura de intimação'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'listar_intimacoes' by emphasizing the irreversible legal effect, making its purpose unique and clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use (confirming reading, with operator awareness of legal effect) and when not (for viewing only). It details prerequisites (environment variables) and the double safety gate, including that without 'confirmar=True' and the environment variable, only a simulation runs. This covers exclusions and alternatives implicitly.

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