baixar_documento_judicial

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two operating modes and the source system, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid ID), file naming, or required permissions. The description adds value beyond the schema but falls short of full behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence with the main action front-loaded and the alternative mode clearly introduced by a dash. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and both modes, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, with 4 parameters and no annotations, more could be said about parameter semantics and error behavior, but the tool's simplicity makes this adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that documento_id is the ID returned by listar_documentos_judiciais and that omitting it triggers full-case download, but it leaves numero_processo, pasta, and soap_setting_id only partially explained by their names and defaults.

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 clearly states that the tool downloads a document from the judicial case folder (PJe/TJPI) using an ID from listar_documentos_judiciais, and also supports downloading complete case files as a single PDF when no ID is provided. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listar_documentos_judiciais (which lists) and ler_documento_judicial (which reads content).

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 specifies when to use the tool: when you have a document ID from listar_documentos_judiciais or when you want the full case files by omitting the ID. It does not explicitly exclude or compare with baixar_processo, but the two-mode behavior is clearly described, providing adequate usage context.

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