listar_downloads_pjedocs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only query ('Consulta') and guarantees no process is opened, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not mention prerequisites, polling behavior, or side effects, but for a simple status query these are less critical. The description adds some value beyond the tool name.

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 that states the core action and a relevant caveat. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool does and its boundary. It is easy to parse and appropriately sized.

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 description is minimal and does not place the tool in the broader PJeDocs workflow, such as being called after solicitar_download_pjedocs and before baixar_resultado_pjedocs. With zero schema coverage on the parameters, the agent must infer the meaning of the three inputs from names alone. The existence of an output schema helps with return values, but the tool remains incomplete for correct invocation.

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 of the three required parameters ('numero', 'grau', 'referencia_solicitacao'). The phrase 'resultado solicitado' hints at the reference parameter, but there is no mapping, format, or guidance for how to fill the inputs. The description fails to compensate for the 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 a specific verb ('Consulta') with a clear resource ('estado do resultado solicitado no PJeDocs'), identifying this as a status-check tool. It also adds 'sem abrir outros processos,' which distinguishes it from process-opening alternatives and aligns it with lightweight polling. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like solicitar_download_pjedocs or baixar_resultado_pjedocs.

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 a clear use case: checking the state of a previously requested PJeDocs result. The caveat 'sem abrir outros processos' gives an exclusion boundary, indicating this tool is non-intrusive and not for opening processes. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it relative to other download-related tools or name alternatives, so it stops short of full workflow guidance.

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