listar_casos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content (status of PDFs, prepared pages, index, summary), which implies a read-only enumeration, but it never states side-effect freedom, permissions, or cost/latency characteristics explicitly.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the second sentence immediately positions the tool in the workflow. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 the description needn't detail return structure, and it correctly focuses on what gets listed and when to call it. Given zero parameters and a low-risk read operation, this is nearly complete; only an explicit read-only/safety note 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is no argument semantics for the description to clarify. The schema is an empty object, consistent with a pure enumeration call.

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+resource ('Lista os casos') and adds scope ('subpastas de ~/Processos') plus the content surfaced (PDFs, páginas preparadas, índice, resumo), so the agent knows this is an inventory/listing operation. It does not name a specific sibling it is distinct from, relying instead on the generic 'ponto de partida' framing.

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?

'Ponto de partida de qualquer conversa' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool — at the start, before drilling into a single case. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. status_caso / resumo_caso), so it stops short of a full when/when-not rubric.

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