consultar_autos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says it 'reads' data, which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires prior authentication, whether it hits the network or only local cache, what happens if the cache doesn't exist, or whether it can fail when the Acervo is unavailable. The mention of 'cache de uma abertura confirmada' hints at a prerequisite but doesn't explain the behavior when that prerequisite isn't met.

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 front-loads the main action ('Lê') and the resource. It's efficient and doesn't waste words. It could be slightly more structured with usage guidance, but for what it is, it's appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description is too thin to be complete. It doesn't explain the relationship to 'abrir_autos_pesquisa_geral' (which likely produces the cache), doesn't clarify parameter semantics, and doesn't state prerequisites or failure modes. The output schema exists but the description doesn't help the agent understand when this tool is the right choice versus siblings like 'consultar_metadados_processo' or 'ler_documento_autos'.

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 for the 4 parameters. It doesn't. The description doesn't explain what 'numero' refers to (process number? case number?), what 'grau' means beyond the enum values, or what the limits control. The parameter names and types are visible in the schema, but the description adds no semantic meaning to help the agent fill 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 states a specific verb ('Lê' = reads) and resource ('Autos do Acervo ou o cache de uma abertura confirmada na Pesquisa Geral'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'abrir_autos_pesquisa_geral' (which opens) and 'ler_documento_autos' (which reads a specific document). It could be slightly clearer about what 'Autos' means in this context, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough.

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 usage context: it reads from the Acervo or from the cache of a confirmed opening in Pesquisa Geral. This suggests it should be used after 'abrir_autos_pesquisa_geral' or when working with Acervo. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over 'ler_documento_autos' or 'consultar_metadados_processo', nor does it state exclusions or alternatives.

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