inspecionar_aba_painel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds a concrete behavioral guarantee 'sem preencher ou submeter' (without filling or submitting), which reinforces the read-only nature, but it does not add further behavioral context such as preconditions or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 core purpose and includes the key read-only constraint. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to the meaning.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description’s main gap is context about preconditions or how the parameters shape the request. It clearly states the tool’s purpose, but does not explain what an 'aba consultiva' is or when this inspection is appropriate relative to other navigation/panel tools, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (aba, grau, jurisdicao). It does not explain how these parameters affect the inspection result or what values are expected, so it fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Descreve' (describes) and a specific resource: 'a estrutura de uma aba consultiva do painel' (the structure of a consultive panel tab). It also clarifies that it does not fill or submit ('sem preencher ou submeter'), distinguishing it from mutation tools. Among siblings, it is clearly distinct from similar inspection tools like 'inspecionar_estrutura_autos' because it targets the panel tab rather than court records.

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: use this tool when you need to inspect the structure of a consultive panel tab. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools such as 'inspecionar_estrutura_autos', so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the purpose alone.

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