indice_pecas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral load. It usefully discloses that the type is heuristic (unreliable and worth verifying), that the data comes from the PJe footer, and that the operation is local, free, and cached — meaningful context about cost, speed, and data quality. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only/purity or how stale the cache can be.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence packs the purpose, the returned fields, the heuristic caveat, and the local/free/cached traits with no filler. The parenthetical tool reference is placed exactly where the risk it mitigates is mentioned.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers output meaning, data provenance, the heuristic caveat, and cost/latency characteristics. The only real gap is the undocumented 'caso' argument, which keeps this from being fully self-sufficient.

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?

There is one required parameter (caso) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does not. It never explains what form the 'caso' identifier takes (number, internal id, slug) or where the agent obtains it, leaving the sole parameter opaque.

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 concrete noun+scope: an index of the case's peças (documents) reconstructed from the PJe footer, and enumerates the returned fields (document number, type, page range, date, signer). An agent can tell what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling indexar_caso, which could be confused with it.

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 one indirect usage cue: confirm key peças with obter_pagina because the type field is heuristic. But it never says when to reach for this tool over indexar_caso, resumo_caso, or status_caso, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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