baixar_resultado_pjedocs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'grava o arquivo e seu SHA-256', which is a useful side effect, but it does not clarify whether the file is stored persistently, what happens on duplicate downloads, any authentication or permissions needed, or the implications of the destructive write.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key side effect. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without sacrificing brevity.

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 the existence of an output schema (not detailed here, but indicated by 'has output schema: true'), the return format may be documented elsewhere. However, for a download tool with three required parameters and no annotation coverage, the description lacks critical information about prerequisites (e.g., that a result must already be prepared), the significance of the SHA-256 hash, and what constitutes a successful vs. failed download.

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, but it provides no parameter-specific meanings. It does not explain what 'numero', 'grau', or 'referencia_resultado' represent or how they relate to the download. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to supply correct values.

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 clear verb ('Baixa') and resource ('resultado pronto e vinculado'), distinguishing it from related download operations like 'baixar_documento_autos' and 'preparar_download_pjedocs'. While it could name the sibling explicitly, the phrase 'resultado pronto e vinculado' provides enough specificity to infer it is for downloading a completed result rather than a raw document.

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 a prerequisite: the result must be 'pronto e vinculado', suggesting it should be used after a download has been prepared or solicited. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'preparar_download_pjedocs' or 'baixar_documento_autos', nor does it mention any required prior steps.

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