redigir_argumento_juridico

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes an internal-looking pipeline of rule, proof, application, adversarial review, and review, but fails to state whether the operation mutates data, requires permissions, is long-running, or what the output 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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded with a verb, but it devotes its space to unexplained jargon and omits the practical details an agent needs. This reads as under-specification rather than economical clarity.

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?

With 6 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and a close sibling, this description is far too incomplete. The presence of an output schema helps with return-value expectations, but purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics remain undefined.

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%, and the description names none of the six parameters (tese, fatos, pedido, lei, jurisdicao, data_referencia). The legal parameter names may hint at meaning, but the description itself adds no semantic or format information beyond the schema.

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 verb (Executa) and a resource ('harness de regra, prova, aplicação, contraditório e revisão'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, the 'harness' concept is opaque, it does not say what the tool produces, and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling construir_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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as construir_argumento_juridico, preparar_minuta_juridica, or auditar_citacoes_juridicas. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues are provided.

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