senado_obter_materia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Obtém' suggests a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. The description lacks transparency about what happens if the code does not exist.

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 front-loads the core purpose and lists key details. Every part adds value, with no redundant or extraneous 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It covers the purpose and return fields, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral context (e.g., read-only confirmation, error handling). With no annotations, there is room for improvement.

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 has one parameter with a description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds context about the tool's output (details of the matter) but does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 full details of a legislative matter, including specific fields like ementa, autoria, situação atual, and relator. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as 'senado_buscar_materias' (search/list) and 'senado_tramitacao_materia' (tracking).

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 obtaining full details of a single matter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tool names provide some context, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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