sei_registrar_andamento

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

The description indicates the tool writes data (registers an activity), aligning with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. However, it does not disclose side effects beyond the basic action, such as whether the activity is immediately visible or if it triggers notifications. The annotations already provide the safety profile, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence and two bullet points. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, the structure could be improved by separating usage guidelines from parameter descriptions, and the bullet points are slightly informal.

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 2 parameters, an output schema (present but not shown), and annotations, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks any mention of return value, behavior upon duplicate activities, or integration with other process operations. With many sibling tools, a brief usage hint would improve completeness.

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 description fully compensates for the 0% schema parameter description coverage by clearly explaining the meaning and format of each parameter: 'processo: protocolo formatado ou IdProcedimento' and 'descricao: texto do andamento'. This goes beyond the schema, which only provides titles and types.

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 action ('Registra um andamento') and resource ('processo'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like sei_alterar_processo or sei_criar_processo, missing an opportunity to clarify differentiation.

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 (e.g., sei_consultar_processo for reading, sei_alterar_processo for modifying metadata). The description only states what the tool does, without any context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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