sei_listar_atividades

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool reads data (histórico) without mutation, and discloses the inactive scraper backend (since SSO), which is important for understanding behavior. No contradiction with 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 (3-4 sentences) with all information front-loaded. Every sentence is informative: purpose, content, parameter format, and backend modes. No unnecessary words.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral nuances. No missing information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds critical meaning: it specifies that 'processo' accepts formatted protocol (e.g., 50300.000123/2025-00) or IdProcedimento. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 lists the history of activities/andamentos of a process, with specific examples of actions (tramitações, assinaturas, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on activities rather than documents, units, etc.

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 provides context on parameter format (protocol or ID) and two backend modes (REST vs scraper), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like sei_listar_documentos. However, the implicit distinction is clear enough.

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