detalhe_jurisprudencia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned, not that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the action.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point. However, it is slightly too terse, omitting parameter details that could be included without harming conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the parameter format, return structure, or usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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?

The single parameter 'url_ou_urn' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its format, expected values, or constraints. The agent lacks necessary information to correctly provide the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves metadata and summary (ementa) of a jurisprudential item, using the specific verb 'Retorna'. The name 'detalhe_jurisprudencia' distinguishes it from sibling search tools like 'buscar_jurisprudencia' and 'buscar_jurisprudencia_avancada'.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for retrieving details of a specific item, whereas siblings are for searching. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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