linha_do_tempo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the output (ordered chronology, events, filing dates) and source context (PJe footer). It implies a read-only operation without side effects, though it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage and filter info. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 does not detail the return structure, but it sufficiently conveys the core functionality and filter options. It lacks error handling or limit mentions, but is adequate for a straightforward list tool.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining the two optional parameters 'de' and 'ate' as ISO-format filters. The required 'case_id' is implied by context. No additional details on format constraints are given, but it adds value.

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 identifies the tool as providing a deterministic chronology of the case with dated events and filing dates, and explicitly contrasts it with opening pages individually. This distinguishes it from siblings like '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 states when to use the tool (for timeline instead of opening pages one by one) and mentions optional filter parameters. It provides clear context but does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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