diagnosticar_neurodiversidade_juridica

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals only that the tool produces an explanation of voting, disagreement, and repetition, but says nothing about whether it triggers external analysis, how it uses the `diversidade` threshold, or what workflow it executes. The disclosure is minimal and mostly restates the obvious diagnostic function.

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 single sentence is structurally clean and front-loaded with the main action. However, at roughly 11 words for a complex 7-parameter diagnostic tool with zero schema coverage, this brevity crosses into under-specification rather than genuine 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?

High complexity (7 parameters, 1 required, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) combined with an 11-word description leaves the tool essentially unusable for correct invocation. The output schema mitigates return-value uncertainty, but the agent is left guessing what `pergunta` expects, what `diversidade` controls, and what the overall workflow is.

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%, so the description must compensate for 7 parameters. It offers only loose conceptual hints ('discordância' relates to `diversidade`; 'votaram' implies a question like `pergunta`), but never explains the roles of `lei`, `jurisdicao`, `tipo_fonte`, `limite`, or `data_referencia`. This is insufficient compensation for a 7-parameter tool.

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 and resource ('explica como as perspectivas votaram... discordância ou repetição') and is functionally distinct from all siblings. However, it relies on unexplained jargon ('perspectivas votaram') that neither the tool name ('neurodiversidade jurídica') nor the parameters clarify, making the core purpose fuzzy for an agent.

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 whatsoever about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name any sibling, state conditions for selection, or mention any exclusion criteria. An agent must infer its place among 25 related legal tools with no support.

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