listar_tribunais

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, and the description explicitly states it returns siglas usable downstream, clarifying the main behavioral and output contract. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or side effects, but for a simple zero-parameter enumeration tool this is sufficient.

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 with no redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose (listing supported tribunals) and then explains the practical value of the return values. 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 zero-parameter list operation with an output schema available, the description fully covers what the tool does and why it matters. It states the total count, the output content (siglas), and the relationship to other tools' parameters. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter description needed, and the description adds relevant context by explaining that the returned siglas feed into the 'tribunal' parameter of other tools, which is more useful than simply noting there are no inputs.

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 ('todos os tribunais suportados pelo MCP') and adds a precise scope detail (91 total). It also states what the tool returns and how that output is used, making it clearly distinct from the many other 'listar_*' sibling tools.

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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose: to provide valid court acronyms for the 'tribunal' parameter of other tools. This implies when an agent needs to know supported tribunals before calling other tools, this is the one to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but no competitors exist among the siblings.

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