preparar_minuta_juridica

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the result always requires human review, which is an important behavioral expectation. It does not, however, clarify side effects, permissions, or whether the tool only generates text without modifying external state.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the main purpose first, then lists accepted inputs, and ends with the human-review caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no schema-level descriptions. It explains which document types are accepted and that human review is required, but it does not explain what 'dados' should contain or how 'objetivo' should be phrased, leaving a critical input opaque despite the output schema being present.

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. It adds meaningful value for tipo_documento by enumerating accepted values and the alias 'ct', but it leaves objetivo, dados, and tom essentially unexplained. Since these are core parameters, the semantic gap is significant.

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 prepares a legal minuta and professional prompt anchored in local articles, which is a specific verb plus resource. The list of accepted document types adds useful scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling drafting tools like redigir_argumento_juridico or gerar_documento_word_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?

The description gives an explicit list of accepted document types, which implies when the tool is appropriate, and notes that human review is always required. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or suggest an alternative sibling, so the usage guidance remains somewhat inferential.

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