sincronizar_corpus_juridico

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a finite RPA, describes the full pipeline (download, separate, embed, save), and importantly reveals idempotency behavior via SHA-256 with no reindexing of unchanged documents. It does not cover rate limits or authorization, but core side effects are transparent.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with no repetition. Each sentence adds non-obvious value: purpose, parameter-driven scope, and idempotency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. The main invocation paths and idempotency are covered, but the undocumented 'concorrencia' parameter, absence of any annotation, and lack of guidance about running alongside other operations leave clear gaps.

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 richly explains 'fontes', including default behavior and the expected code source, but completely omits 'concorrencia'. With only two parameters, leaving one entirely undocumented is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to adjust it.

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?

States a specific verb sequence and resource: 'baixa, separa, embeda e salva artigos de fontes oficiais'. It clearly distinguishes the sync/ingestion role from query siblings like consultar_corpus_juridico and estatisticas_corpus_juridico, and also names the related listar_fontes_corpus_juridico as the source of codes.

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?

Provides clear context: omitting 'fontes' syncs the entire main catalog, while providing codes from listar_fontes_corpus_juridico scopes the operation. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or differentiation from sincronizar_normas_regulamentadoras, but the main use cases are clear.

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