ler_documento_autos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes the core behavior (extracting text and computing SHA-256) and signals a non-destructive read operation by implication, but it does not disclose potential truncation behavior, authentication needs, or what happens when the document is unavailable.

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 sentence that conveys the action, target, and output with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 presence of many sibling tools and five parameters with no documented semantics, the description is too terse. It does not explain how to identify the document, when to use limits, or how this tool relates to alternatives, so an agent may not have enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 explain any parameter. It only indirectly suggests that 'referencia_documento' refers to a document already in the Autos, but it does not clarify 'numero', 'grau', 'max_paginas', or 'max_caracteres'. The agent must infer most parameter semantics from parameter names alone.

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 'Extrai texto', a specific resource ('documento já enumerado nos Autos'), and a concrete output (SHA-256). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like baixar_documento_autos and consultar_autos, which serve different purposes.

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 'já enumerado nos Autos' implies the tool is intended for documents that have already been enumerated in the case files, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions beyond enumeration.

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