analisar_radar_processual_civel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not emit a final conclusion, which is a behavioral constraint. However, it lacks information on return format, side effects (e.g., mutation), authorization requirements, or whether it depends on external data.

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 sentence that is relatively dense and front-loaded with key information. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate purpose from constraints. Overall, it is concise and avoids unnecessary words.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It fails to specify what the tool returns, how to interpret output, or any dependencies. More context is needed for effective use.

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 the parameters. It mentions 'evidence_ids' but no such parameter exists; only 'case_id' and 'lado' are defined. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, leaving ambiguity about how they relate to the stated function.

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 it provides civil procedural notes (deadlines and opportunities) anchored in evidence_ids and explicitly says it does not emit a final conclusion. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'analisar_caso_civel', which likely performs a broader analysis.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or compare with similar tools like 'analisar_caso_civel'. Usage context is only implied.

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