criar_caso_local

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

Discloses background ingestion as a key behavioral trait. No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden; missing details on auth requirements, side effects, or error handling. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose but efficient; no wasted 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 3 params, the description is insufficient. Does not cover default area, slug purpose, error conditions, or return value format beyond case_id.

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 description adds no parameter-specific guidance. Only implies pdf_path refers to the PDF; area and slug are completely unexplained, leaving agent unable to determine correct values.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a local case from an existing PDF in an authorized folder and starts background ingestion, with instruction to return case_id and follow with status_caso. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like status_caso or retomar_ingestao.

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?

Implicitly suggests using after PDF is in authorized folder and to subsequent call status_caso. No explicit when-not or alternative tool comparisons, leaving some ambiguity for selection.

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