construir_argumento_juridico

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output structure and that local sources are involved; it does not explain side effects, read/write behavior, how sources are selected, or what the response contains.

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 filler, but it is so terse that it becomes cryptic. It conveys the structural chain, yet omits enough detail that the brevity is under-specification rather than polished conciseness.

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?

This is a complex six-parameter legal tool with no annotations and no schema-level descriptions. The one-line phrase is far from sufficient for an agent to know when, why, or how to call it, even if an output schema exists.

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 schema has six parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only alludes to fatos, pedido, and perhaps lei/Norma through the structural chain, while tese, jurisdicao, and data_referencia remain unexplained and unmapped.

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 'Estrutura Fato→Prova→Norma→Subsunção→Consequência→Pedido com fontes locais' communicates that the tool works with legal arguments and uses a defined structural chain, so it is not a bare tautology. However, it lacks an explicit action verb and does not distinguish this tool from near-sibling redigir_argumento_juridico.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool instead of alternatives. It never mentions conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it does not reference related tools such as redigir_argumento_juridico or preparar_minuta_juridica.

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