sei_consultar_processo

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It explains the dual-backend approach (REST and optional web scraper), fallback behavior on failure, what fields to expect from each, and the special handling for restricted processes (_aviso_acesso). This provides a comprehensive understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it is somewhat lengthy due to detailed explanations of both backends and fallback behavior. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise without losing critical information.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all key aspects: the two backends, field lists, error handling, and special cases. There are no obvious gaps for a single-process lookup 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 fully compensates by providing an example protocol format ('50300.000123/2025-00') and explaining that it is a formatted protocol number. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 'Consulta um processo SEI pelo número de protocolo formatado', specifying the exact verb and resource. It provides an example protocol format and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing that it retrieves a single process by protocol, unlike sei_listar_processos or sei_pesquisar_processos which list or search multiple processes.

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 implies usage for looking up a specific process by protocol number and gives details about the two backends. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sei_arvore_processo or sei_listar_processos, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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