sei_concluir_processo

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

The description discloses that the process is removed from the unit's inbox but remains accessible, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate non-destructive and write nature, and the description confirms this with no contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and structured.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects), the description covers the effect and reversibility. The mention of 'unidade atual' relies on system context, but this is reasonable given sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not explain the sole parameter 'numero_processo'. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory ('Numero Processo' meaning process number), and the schema provides a title. The baseline for a simple parameter is adequate.

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 states the specific verb 'conclui' (concludes) and the resource 'processo na unidade atual do SEI'. It distinguishes from sibling tool sei_reabrir_processo by mentioning reversal, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly says 'Use sei_reabrir_processo para reverter' (use to revert), indicating when to use this tool versus an alternative. It implies this tool is for concluding processes, but does not list explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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