listar_acervo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only discloses that the search runs in the PJe environment, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, how pagination works, or what failures may occur. For an 11-parameter search action, this is under-transparent.

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 short, front-loaded, and has no redundant clauses. However, a single sentence is under-sized for a tool with 11 parameters and zero schema-level descriptions, so the conciseness comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is materially incomplete: it lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral expectations. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the one-line description does not give an agent enough to call this tool correctly or choose it among 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 does not mention or explain any of the 11 parameters, including key filters like grau, filtro, pesquisa, parte, or assunto. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, forcing agents to guess parameter purposes.

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 action ('Lista ou pesquisa o Acervo') and a scope ('de uma jurisdição'), and adds the useful context that the search runs inside PJe. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource and scope are identifiable enough for an agent to distinguish it from tools like listar_jurisdicoes_acervo.

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 intended use is implied by the verbs 'listar/pesquisar' and the note that the search runs in PJe, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent is left to infer when this tool should be preferred over other search/consultation tools.

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