indexar_caso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses cost semantics (estimate shown with confirmar=False, nothing spent without confirmar=True), the mandatory user-confirmation protocol, incremental-by-hash behavior, rebuild semantics (full reset, e.g. model change), background execution for large cases, and per-PDF commit atomicity so partial work is not lost. These are exactly the irreversible/spend traits an agent must know.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the safety-critical spending rule, then the incremental/rebuild distinction, then the background/monitoring note. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information with 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted. Given the tool's mutation-and-cost profile with three parameters, the description covers spend gating, confirmation ownership, idempotency/rebuild, execution mode, and progress monitoring — nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing.

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 compensates for two of three parameters with real meaning beyond the schema: confirmar (dry-run vs. actual spend, user-gated) and rebuild (rebuild from scratch, e.g. after a model swap). The 'caso' parameter is left implicit but is self-evident as the target case identifier, leaving only a minor gap.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Indexa as páginas preparadas') and names the underlying mechanism (voyage-4-large + FTS5), which tells the agent this is the indexing step that consumes output from preparar_caso rather than a search or listing tool. Scope (entire prepared corpus of a case) is unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear operational conditions: confirmar=False is a dry-run, confirmar=True is required to spend, and confirmation 'deve vir do usuário, nunca ser presumida'. It also routes background monitoring to status_caso. What it doesn't state explicitly is the prerequisite ordering (index after preparing) or any exclusion, so it stops just short of a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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