senado_obter_comissao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses some return fields but does not state that it is a read operation, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. The tool likely reads data but this is not explicit.

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, concise sentence that effectively states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

With no output schema, the description must detail return values. It only lists three fields (president, vice-president, purpose), but 'detalhes' implies more data is returned (e.g., members, meetings). The tool is part of a large server with many sibling tools, but the description does not help differentiate beyond basic purpose.

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% for the single parameter 'sigla', with a clear description and examples. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Obtém' and resource 'comissão', listing key fields (president, vice-president, purpose). It distinguishes from sibling 'senado_listar_comissoes' by focusing on details of a single commission, and from 'senado_membros_comissao' by including leadership 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?

The description implies usage for fetching a specific commission's details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'senado_membros_comissao' or 'senado_listar_comissoes'. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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