senado_partidos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is needed, or any potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, empty results). The description only states output content, not behavioral traits.

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 sentence of 12 words, starting with the verb 'Lista' to immediately convey the action. No redundant information or filler; every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the return fields for a simple list tool. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or how to handle edge cases (e.g., no parties). Given the tool's simplicity and parameterless nature, the description is largely 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?

The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100% vacuously). The description adds value by specifying the output fields (sigla, nome completo, número de senadores), which the empty schema does not convey. This exceeds the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 lists parties with current Senate representation and includes specific fields (sigla, nome completo, número de senadores). It uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('partidos com representação atual no Senado'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like senado_listar_senadores (lists senators) or senado_ufs (lists states).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., senado_listar_senadores for senators or senado_listar_comissoes for committees). While the purpose is clear, there are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or references to related tools.

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