Listar Tribunais

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses that the list is a complete fixed catalog (92 entries) held by the MCP, implying no filtering, pagination, or side effects. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or static/cacheable, which would have closed the remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then immediately the practical consequence. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 zero-parameter catalog tool with an output schema that already defines the return shape, the description covers purpose, cardinality, and downstream usage. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully characterizes the output values as valid inputs for the 'tribunal' parameter elsewhere, which is extra semantic value not present in the empty input schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lista as siglas de tribunais') plus the exact cardinality (92), which lets an agent recognize this as the enumeration/lookup tool rather than a search tool. It is clearly distinguishable from all listed siblings, none of which return reference codes.

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?

It states the practical use: the returned siglas feed the 'tribunal' parameter of the other tools, which tells the agent to call this first when a court code is unknown. It does not spell out when not to call it (e.g. when the sigla is already known) or name a specific alternative, so it falls short of a full 5.

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