status_navegacao_adaptativa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds context about what it informs (mode, retention, adapters) and the non-browser/non-tribunal aspect, but doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits like output format or potential side effects. No contradiction.

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 immediately conveys the core purpose and the key differentiator (no browser/tribunal access). Every word earns its place, no fluff.

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 tool has zero parameters and no output schema details are needed (though an output schema exists, its structure isn't provided in the signal), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its scope. The absence of usage exclusions is a minor gap, but for such a simple tool, it's nearly complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description explains what the tool returns (mode, retention, adapters), which adds meaning beyond the empty schema. With no parameters, there is nothing else to document, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Informa' (informs) and the resource: mode, retention, and local adapters. It also distinguishes itself by noting it does so without opening a browser or accessing the court, which sets it apart from navigation-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 when to use this tool (when you need status information without browser/tribunal access), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools like 'diagnosticar_ambiente' or 'validar_adaptadores_offline' could be related, but no guidance is given.

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