cronologia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: results are ordered by the PJe footer signature date, and the piece 'Tipos' are heuristic rather than authoritative. It still omits permissions, whether prior indexing is required, and output size/pagination behavior.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose and the ordering rule come first and the reliability caveat follows. Slightly terse — 'Tipos são heurísticos' leaves 'tipos' unexplained.

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-value detail is unnecessary, and the tool is low-complexity with one parameter. The description covers purpose, ordering, and a data-quality caveat, but leaves the 'caso' argument format and any indexing prerequisite unaddressed.

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 never mentions the single required parameter 'caso' at all — no indication whether it expects an ID, case number, or name. The description adds no semantics beyond what the bare schema already provides.

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 resource (cronologia/linha do tempo do processo) and a precise ordering rule (data de assinatura do rodapé PJe), which distinguishes it from index-style siblings like indice_pecas. It never names indice_pecas or resumo_caso explicitly, so sibling disambiguation is only partial.

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 closing clause 'confirme peças-chave com obter_pagina' points to an alternative tool and implicitly tells the agent this output is not authoritative for key pieces. However, it gives no positive guidance on when to reach for cronologia versus indice_pecas or resumo_caso, and no prerequisite conditions (e.g. whether indexar_caso must run first).

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