sei_atribuir_processo

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable detail: when a name is given, the tool searches for matching users and attempts assignment to each until one has permission. This clarifies the fallback behavior and side effects, which goes beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with bullet points. The main verb and resource are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no schema descriptions), the description covers the main behavior and parameter usage. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. It could mention whether the assignment is successful or provides feedback, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: numero_processo format with an example, and usuario accepting either numeric ID or name with search logic. This provides complete semantics beyond 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 it assigns a process to a user ('Atribui um processo a um usuário da unidade'). This distinguishes it from siblings like sei_remover_atribuicao (remove assignment) and sei_listar_usuarios (list users). However, it doesn't contrast with other assignment-related tools like sei_receber_processo or sei_enviar_processo.

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 explains that the usuario parameter can be a numeric ID or a name (with search fallback). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools for different scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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