sei_acompanhar_processo

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement that it adds tracking is consistent. But the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond annotations, such as whether the action is idempotent, reversible, or requires permissions.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses bullet points for parameters, making it easy to scan. No unnecessary text, but could be slightly more informative without bloating.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits information about error conditions, idempotency, and the meaning of 'especial' tracking. It is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for all three parameters, including the format of processo and a cross-reference for grupo. However, it lacks details on optionality, default behavior, or constraints, which is a gap.

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 adds special tracking (acompanhamento) to a process, with a verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like sei_remover_acompanhamento, but does not explicitly differentiate usage contexts, though the action is 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?

It provides a useful cross-reference to sei_listar_grupos_acompanhamento for getting the group ID. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to remove tracking) and does not mention prerequisites or limitations.

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