status_caso

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful context about what is inspected (PDF preparation state, OCR page counts, indexing backlog, cost estimate), which implicitly frames it as a non-mutating diagnostic read. However it never states read-only behavior, permission requirements, or whether the cost estimate is authoritative — meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope up front and no filler. The parenthetical sub-clauses earn their place by naming the specific data points returned.

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 exact return shape needn't be restated. But with no annotations, no usage routing against eleven siblings, and an undocumented sole parameter, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent deciding when to call it.

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 single required parameter 'caso' has no schema description (0% coverage) and is never mentioned in the description — no identifier format, no name-vs-ID guidance. Since coverage is below 50%, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 ('Estado detalhado do caso') and enumerates the concrete outputs: per-PDF preparation state, OCR page counts, in-progress preparation, remaining-to-index items, and estimated cost. This distinguishes it from the summary-style sibling resumo_caso, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as resumo_caso (overview) or preparar_caso/indexar_caso (the mutating actions it reports on). The diagnostic intent is only implied by the reported fields; an agent gets no explicit trigger conditions or exclusions.

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