abrir_autos_pesquisa_geral

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description only mentions that the PJe may record access—a minor side effect. It does not disclose the destructive nature, such as potential data loss or irreversible changes. This is a significant omission given the annotation.

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 very short, which is concise, but the information is too sparse. It mentions a necessary condition and a side effect, but the structure does not front-load the core action or provide a clear purpose. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Given 4 required parameters, zero schema coverage, and no output schema details, the description is thoroughly inadequate. The agent has no clue about the format of inputs, what the 'literal message' should be, or what the result will look like. This tool is virtually unusable without external knowledge.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter information. The parameters 'numero', 'grau', 'referencia_preparo', and 'confirmacao' are not explained at all; the agent has to guess their format and purpose.

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 says 'opens the result only after a new literal message,' but it does not specify what 'result' refers to or what resource is being opened. It lacks a clear verb-resource pair, and the tool name suggests opening case files ('autos') in a general search, but the description does not clarify this.

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 that a new literal message is required before opening, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'preparar_acesso_pesquisa_geral' or 'consultar_autos'. There is no explicit guidance on preconditions or step sequencing.

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