senado_agenda_plenario

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds behavioral context: it returns a specific structure with fields like data, escopo, count, sessoes, and details about each session. It also notes constraints like dataFim only applicable with escopo=cn. No contradictions 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 two sentences, fully front-loaded with the main purpose and return structure. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 3 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description is complete: it explains the return structure, default behavior, and explicitly names alternatives for related tasks. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how to use it.

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 100%, and the description reinforces parameter meanings: data pattern and default, escopo enum values explained (dia = SF+CN, mes = month, cn = Congress), dataFim condition. The description adds context beyond the schema, like the default behavior and the relationship between escopo and dataFim.

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 retrieves the plenary session agenda with the voting agenda, specifying scope by day/month and return structure. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like senado_resultado_plenario and senado_encontro_plenario by naming them explicitly.

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 explicit guidelines: it says when to use alternatives (senado_resultado_plenario for already appreciated results, senado_encontro_plenario for session details) and explains the default behavior (assumes today's date if none provided).

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