senado_listar_comissoes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining that the endpoint only returns active commissions, so setting ativa=false yields empty results, and details the return structure. This provides useful behavioral context 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 three sentences: first states purpose and filters, second describes return format, third gives usage recommendation. It is front-loaded, no fluff, and every sentence adds value. Extremely concise for the information conveyed.

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 presence of an output schema (implied by context), the description comprehensively covers what the tool does, its parameters, return format, and how it fits with sibling tools. No gaps remain for effective agent usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description enhances understanding by explaining the practical effect of the ativa parameter (empty list if false due to endpoint limitation) and lists the enum values for tipo. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema alone.

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 it lists active commissions with filters by tipo and ativa, and specifies the return format including fields like codigo, sigla, nome, etc. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning its use for discovering sigla needed by senado_obter_comissao and senado_reunioes_comissao.

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 directly states when to use this tool: to discover the sigla required by senado_obter_comissao and senado_reunioes_comissao. It also warns that ativa=false results in an empty list. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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