listar_movimentacoes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output fields, ordering, and the performance rationale for the required tribunal parameter. However, it does not mention failure modes, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or any other side effects, though none seem likely for a read-only listing tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a concise statement of the return format and ordering. There is no fluff, and every sentence earns its place.

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 listing tool with three parameters, complete schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what is returned and the ordering. The only gap is the lack of explicit behavior around errors or edge cases, but these are less critical given the low complexity and read-only nature of the tool.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds context about what is returned but does not add additional meaning to the parameters themselves. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already provides complete parameter documentation.

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 states a clear verb ('Lista') and a specific resource ('movimentações de um processo judicial'), and goes on to specify the returned fields and ordering. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like listar_intimacoes or resumir_andamento, but the resource is unambiguous enough that an agent can tell what the tool does.

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 intended use is implied by the description: list recent movements for a judicial process. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as resumir_andamento or listar_intimacoes, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The tribunal parameter note adds a performance constraint but not usage routing.

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