sei_verificar_acesso

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already indicate safety and possible external data access. The description adds version availability and a troubleshooting step but does not detail failure modes or response behavior. The description is consistent with annotations and adds marginal behavioral context.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words. Every sentence provides value: purpose, usage guidance, version info, troubleshooting. Very 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 access-check tool with an output schema (not shown but exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and version. It could mention return type briefly, but the output schema fills that gap. Given context signals (1 param, annotations, siblings), it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no information about the 'processo' parameter beyond its inferred purpose. The parameter name is clear, but the description does not clarify format, constraints, or valid values. With only one parameter and no param docs, a baseline of 2 is appropriate.

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 checks user access to a process ('Verifica se o usuário tem acesso a um processo'). This distinguishes it from siblings like sei_consultar_processo (retrieve details) or sei_alterar_processo (modify). The verb and resource are specific.

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 advises using it before operations on restricted processes ('Útil para checar permissão antes de operações em processos restritos'). It also provides a troubleshooting hint (use sei_versao on error). While explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are missing, the context is clear.

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