consultar_metadados_processo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the operation hits the public DataJud API and requires no browser or session, implying no authentication ceremony is needed. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and the key differentiator ('sem navegador nem sessão') efficiently. It could include more parameter guidance, but conciseness itself is well handled.

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?

With three parameters, no schema-level parameter descriptions, and a description that mentions none of them, the tool is not fully documented for correct invocation. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still leaves the meaning and format of numero and limite_movimentos unexplained, which is a significant gap.

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 lack of parameter documentation. It does not: it never explains numero format, the tribunal enum values, or what limite_movimentos controls. The only indirect hint is 'NPU', which suggests numero, but no meaningful semantic detail is added.

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 identifies the tool as returning public metadata for an NPU via the CNJ DataJud API, and explicitly states it works without a browser or session. This distinguishes it from the many browser/session-based sibling tools such as consultar_autos or abrir_autos.

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 phrase 'sem navegador nem sessão' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the agent needs public metadata through the API without authenticating or driving a browser. It does not name alternatives or give exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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