Monitorar Processo

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the data comes from DataJud and results are not real-time (polling), with a planned move to push notifications. It says nothing about rate limits, authorization needs, or cost of repeated calls, which matter for a polling tool.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, and the follow-up lines are short. The Fase 2 / Fase 3 roadmap sentences are partly engineering-facing, but they do convey the non-real-time behavior, so they are not pure waste.

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 three-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and an output schema that explains the return shape, the description covers what the tool does and how fresh the data is. The remaining gap is what exactly constitutes an 'atualização', which would help the agent interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the three parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of a reference date ('após a data informada'), which loosely maps to desde_iso, but provides no format, timezone, or matching semantics beyond the schema's ISO 8601 note.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it checks whether a given process (processo) had an update after a supplied reference date. This is distinct enough from the sibling names, but it never contrasts itself with close siblings like listar_movimentacoes or buscar_processo_por_numero, so the agent must infer when this check is the right call.

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?

Usage is implied by the check semantics and the note that this is polling-based with no real-time behavior, which tells the agent it must call repeatedly rather than expect a subscription. However, no alternative tools are named and no conditions for preferring this over listing movements directly are given.

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