status_autenticacao

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'sem expor cookies ou tokens' (without exposing cookies or tokens), and uses 'parece válida' to indicate a heuristic check. However, it omits other traits like side effects, network use, or how 'grau' influences behavior, providing only partial transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Informa') and includes essential scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple status tool, the description covers the primary purpose and a safety trait, but it is incomplete due to the unexplained 'grau' parameter and lack of clarifications on the output format or what constitutes a 'valid' session. The absence of an output schema heightens the need for more detail, which is not provided.

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 single parameter 'grau' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The enum values '1' and '2' are undefined, leaving the agent with no guidance on what this parameter controls. The description fails 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: 'Informa se há storageState salvo e se a sessão parece válida' (reports whether there is saved storageState and if the session seems valid). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'autenticar' by focusing on status rather than creation. The additional 'sem expor cookies ou tokens' further clarifies its scope.

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 as a preliminary check before authenticated operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings such as 'autenticar' or 'consultar_processo'. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the usage context implicit.

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