resumir_andamento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals read-only behavior with verbs like 'Retorna', 'busca', and 'devolve', and usefully discloses that the output includes instructions and that the MCP does not perform semantic summarization. It does not discuss side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but the read-only nature is evident.

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, with the core purpose in the first sentence and operational context plus the crucial MCP/model boundary in the following sentences. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

Given the simple parameter set, full schema descriptions, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It states the data source, what is returned, and explicitly clarifies that summary generation is the model's responsibility, preventing a common misconception.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including CNJ format for numero_processo and the tribunal default behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the operation: retrieving structured process data from DataJud for LLM-generated summaries. It distinguishes itself by stating that semantic summarization is intentionally left to the model, not the MCP, which separates it from raw-data-fetching or drafting siblings. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent should use this tool when it needs to produce a natural-language case summary, since the description says the data is returned 'para geração de resumo pelo LLM'. Yet there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives like buscar_processo_por_numero for raw process data.

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