baixar_inteiro_teor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions creating an exclusive directory and manifest.json, which is useful, but omits critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements, error handling for inaccessible documents, whether the directory is overwritten, or any rate limits. The description gives a brief high-level effect but not enough for safe invocation.

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 fluff, immediately stating the action and output. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, wasting no 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?

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the meaning of grau, the optional diretorio_destino, what manifest.json contains, or any prerequisites like authentication. The existence of sibling tools (e.g., baixar_documento) is not leveraged to clarify boundaries, leaving the overall context incomplete.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters (numero_processo, grau, diretorio_destino). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify the meaning of 'grau' (degree/instance) or the role of diretorio_destino, leaving the agent to guess. No compensation for low schema coverage.

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 downloads all accessible documents from a process and generates a manifest.json file. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like baixar_documento (singular download) and listar_documentos (listing) by focusing on bulk download.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need all accessible documents from a process, as opposed to baixar_documento for a single document. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or direct comparison with alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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