senado_membros_comissao

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only notes that members are 'atuais' (current) and includes cargo. It does not disclose data freshness, sorting, pagination, or whether all members are included. This is adequate for a simple list but lacks depth.

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 a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and includes key output details.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it omits what order members are listed, whether pagination exists, or if it pertains to the current legislature only—leaving some ambiguity.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with description 'Sigla da comissão', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is an acronym. Baseline 3 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 explicitly states the tool lists current members of a commission with their specific positions (president, vice, titular, substitute), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like senado_listar_comissoes (lists commissions) and senado_obter_comissao (get commission details).

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, such as when to list commissions versus members, or whether filtering by legislature is needed. The description fails to mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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