baixar_documento_autos

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool writes a file and a SHA-256 sidecar, indicating a side effect, but provides no information about permissions, rate limits, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool that mutates the filesystem.

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 immediately states the action and output. No wasted words exist; it is front-loaded and to the point.

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 tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain what 'Autos' refers to, what constitutes an 'enumerado' document, or why a SHA-256 sidecar is created. It also omits any interaction with sibling tools or the overall workflow, making the description inadequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain 'numero', 'grau', or 'referencia_documento'. The phrase 'documento enumerado nos Autos' vaguely hints at the reference but does not clarify the parameters' meaning, format, or allowed values. This leaves the agent without the information needed to populate them correctly.

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 verb 'Baixa' (download) and the resource 'um documento enumerado nos Autos', and specifies the output (file and SHA-256 sidecar). It is specific enough to distinguish from 'ler_documento_autos' (read) and other download-related siblings, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other download tools like 'preparar_download_pjedocs' or 'ler_documento_autos'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so agents are left to infer applicability.

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