inspecionar_estrutura_autos

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 a meaningful operational guarantee beyond these: no peça is opened or read, making the tool's non-invasive scope explicit. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the purpose and the critical boundary. It contains no filler, no repetition of schema fields, and every phrase earns its place.

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 output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, so the description need not explain those. However, with zero parameter coverage, the description should provide more guidance on the two required inputs and when exactly to choose this over content-reading siblings.

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 says nothing about 'numero' or 'grau'. The parameter names and the grau enum are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing format or context of 'numero'.

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 opens with 'Descreve a estrutura da timeline dos Autos', giving a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly states 'sem abrir ou ler peça alguma', which distinguishes it from content-reading siblings like ler_documento_autos and consultar_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 clause 'sem abrir ou ler peça alguma' clearly orientates when to use this tool: when only the timeline structure is needed, not document contents. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the context is clear enough.

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