status_caso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the informational outputs (pages, OCR, alerts, job status) but does not specify read-only behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loads the core purpose and key details. Every element is relevant, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested schemas, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose and output categories. However, it lacks details on the output format or structure, and could be more complete for an agent to interpret results.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'case_id' with no description and no enums. Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no context beyond the parameter name. The description does not explain what 'case_id' refers to or how to format it, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of information.

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 the tool's purpose: showing progress of local ingestion including processed pages, pending OCR, alerts, and job status. It uses a specific verb ('Progresso') and resource ('ingestao local'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'criar_caso_local' (creation) and 'retomar_ingestao' (resumption).

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 checking ingestion status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analisar_caso_civel' or 'buscar_no_processo'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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