sei_conceder_credenciamento

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds version availability and an error-handling hint, but does not elaborate on behavioral details like duplicate handling or permission requirements.

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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that each add value. The version and error hint are useful, though slightly tangential. It could be more concise but overall 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 the tool's simplicity (2 required params, output schema exists), the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks prerequisites, output explanation, or context about what 'processo sigiloso' entails. Adequate but not 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal extra meaning: 'processo' and 'id_usuario' are implied but not detailed. No format, constraints, or examples are given, leaving agents to rely solely on parameter names.

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 verb 'concede' (grants) and resource 'credenciamento de acesso a um processo sigiloso para um usuário'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like listar, renunciar, and cassar by specifying the granting action.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The description implies usage for granting credentials but does not contrast with other credential-related siblings. The troubleshooting tip adds context but not usage guidance.

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