senado_listar_blocos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the return format and structure (count, blocos, each with nested partidos). This provides context beyond annotations, but no behavioral surprises.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and return structure, second gives usage guidance and links to sibling tools. No waste, front-loaded with key information.

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 zero parameters and existing output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and how to use it. It also references related tools for next steps, making it contextually 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?

No parameters exist, so the description cannot add meaning to them. With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description correctly states there are no inputs, so no further elaboration needed.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists all parliamentary blocs and their member parties. Explicitly mentions the return structure with fields like count, blocos, codigo, nome, etc. Differentiates from sibling tools by referencing senado_obter_bloco for detail and senado_liderancas for leadership.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use this tool to discover a bloc's codigo, then use senado_obter_bloco for details; for leadership, use senado_liderancas. This helps the agent decide when to call this tool versus alternatives.

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