listar_documentos

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

With no annotations, the description carries a heavy transparency burden. It does disclose that results are filtered by the authenticated session's access, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not describe the return format (metadata vs. content), pagination, ordering, or error behavior.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and includes the essential access constraint. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary repetition.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description leaves out return-value details and fully explains neither the parameters nor the authentication flow. Without annotations or an output schema, this is under-specified for reliable agent invocation.

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 either 'numero_processo' or 'grau'. It fails to explain that 'grau' likely represents court instance (1 or 2) or the format expected for 'numero_processo'. Parameter names alone are insufficient for a Portuguese legal context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') with a clear resource ('documentos do processo') and scope ('acessíveis à sessão autenticada'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like baixar_documento, which downloads a specific document, and consultar_processo, which presumably retrieves process data.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, relationship to authentication tools, or when not to use it. The context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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