analisar_caso_civel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'com lacunas explicitas' and 'Respeite global_analysis_allowed', but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or return values.

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 (two sentences), but the structure is poor due to unexplained jargon and lack of clarity. Conciseness is positive, but at the expense of informativeness.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, inputs, or outputs adequately.

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%, yet the description does not mention any parameter names or meanings. The agent has no guidance on what 'case_id', 'objetivo', 'lado', or 'max_items' represent.

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 domain-specific terms like 'cobertura', 'radar processual', and 'pacote de evidencias' without explaining what they mean, making it vague. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'analisar_radar_processual_civel'.

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 only guidance is 'Respeite global_analysis_allowed', which is a constraint. There is no explanation of when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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