montar_pacote_evidencias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions output components (evidence_id, coverage, queries) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or whether the tool is read-only or destructive. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool implied by 'montar'.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise, though the structure could be improved by separating purpose from output details.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's behavior, response format, or when to invoke it, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly.

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 adds no meaning to any of the four parameters (case_id, objetivo, lado, max_items). The output components referenced (evidence_id, coverage, queries) are not directly tied to parameters.

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 specifies that the tool produces a compact package of facts including evidence_id, coverage, and suggested queries for a jurisprudence MCP. This clearly identifies the tool's output components but does not explicitly state the verb or action, leaving some ambiguity about what 'montar' means operationally.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it is for a connected jurisprudence MCP but does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or excluded scenarios.

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