monitorar_processo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses polling (not real-time) and mentions future push notification, but does not detail side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Basic behavioral context is given but not comprehensive.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose and two for implementation status. It is front-loaded with the core function. The technical details (DataJud, phases) are useful but could be considered slightly verbose for an agent; however, overall it is efficient.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage and an existing output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the check and the data reference point. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the process must be pre-registered) but sibling tools suggest coverage. Slight gap in overall context.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage; each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond referencing 'data informada' which maps to 'desde_iso'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no extra value over the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: check if a process has an update after a given date. The verb 'verifica' and resource 'processo' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buscar_processo_por_numero' or 'listar_processos_monitorados' by focusing on update checking.

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 usage via implementation phases (polling, not real-time) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'buscar_processo_por_numero' or 'listar_movimentacoes'. No direct comparison or alternatives are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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