abrir_pagina

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

The description discloses that it returns extracted text and a local path/link for the original PDF, which adds transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or behavior for invalid page numbers.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential information without extraneous text. Every part is meaningful.

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 covers the primary function and mentions a key return value (original path/link). However, it lacks details on error handling, return format, and does not specify if the text extraction includes formatting or metadata. Given the simple tool signature, it is moderately 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It links 'page' to a specific page and 'case_id' to a process, but provides no additional details about expected formats, bounds, or semantics beyond the schema's min/max.

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 it extracts text from a specific page of a process, which is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'abrir_trecho' or 'buscar_no_processo', and the domain (legal case) is implied but not stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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