sei_receber_processo

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutations) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it 'confirms receipt,' which is consistent. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or permissions, so it adds minimal value beyond 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 two sentences: one for purpose, one for parameter explanation. No wasted words, front-loaded, and efficient.

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?

For a simple tool with 1 parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core action and parameter format. Minor lack of detail on what 'recebimento' entails, but sufficient for the task.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains that 'processo' can be a formatted protocol or IdProcedimento, giving crucial format guidance that the schema lacks. This compensation merits a high score.

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 uses a specific verb ('confirms the receipt') and resource ('process'), clearly stating the tool's action. Among siblings (e.g., sei_enviar_processo, sei_concluir_processo), this stands out as the receipt confirmation tool.

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 states when to use it ('to confirm receipt in the current unit') but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Context is clear, but guidance on exclusion is missing.

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