sei_dar_ciencia

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifying state) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as prerequisites, idempotency, notification effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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 with a clear definition, parameter list, and two illustrative examples. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The description covers inputs and examples well but omits what the tool returns (success indication, errors) and any side effects. Since an output schema exists, the burden on the description for return values is reduced, but behavioral context remains incomplete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains both parameters: 'referencia' is the SEI number or protocol, and 'tipo' has two enumerated values with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic titles.

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's purpose: 'Dá ciência em um documento ou processo no SEI' (gives knowledge on a document or process). Examples further clarify the intended use. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sei_listar_ciencias or sei_consultar_processo, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to processes and documents, the description lacks context for selection, leaving the agent to rely solely on the name.

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