buscar_no_processo

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the hybrid search mode, the nature of hits (allegation in petitions vs fact), and the instruction to open verbatim before citing. This goes beyond basic purpose.

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 concise with three impactful sentences. It front-loads the main action and packs critical details without 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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, result structure, and a behavioral caveat. However, it lacks details on parameter usage, return format beyond listed fields, and how to process results (e.g., using document IDs).

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (query, case_id, limit). There is no guidance on what values to use or their effect on results.

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 is a local search in process evidence, explains hybrid behavior (semantic vs lexical), and specifies result contents (evidence_id, page, snippet, source document). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'abrir_trecho' and 'abrir_pagina'.

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 usage for searching within evidence but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides a follow-up action ('abra o verbatim com abrir_trecho antes de citar') but lacks comparison to sibling tools.

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