sei_listar_secoes

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description explains input resolution, the difference between protocoloFormatado and internal id, and the inclusion of _documento_resolvido for verification. It adds useful behavioral context without 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 three short paragraphs in Portuguese, front-loaded with purpose, then input details, then output details. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: input format, output content, and relation to editing. It could mention error cases or default behavior but is mostly 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 compensates fully by explaining that id_documento accepts both protocoloFormatado and internal id, and warns about their difference. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 lists editable sections of an internal SEI document. It specifies the input (protocoloFormatado or internal id) and output (section IDs, HTML content, version). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sei_editar_secao by noting the version is needed for editing.

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 states that the returned version is necessary for using sei_editar_secao, guiding when to use this tool. It does not provide explicit exclusions or comparisons to other read tools like sei_ler_documento, but the use case is clear.

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