listar_documentos_judiciais

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the data source (PJe/TJPI) and document types, and the verb 'Lista' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or potential side effects like triggering a download.

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 that front-loads the main action and then adds necessary context about the document source and types. It is reasonably compact, with parenthetical examples adding useful detail without excessive length.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is adequate: it explains what documents are included and their origin. Return values are not described but are covered by the output schema. It does not address ordering or filters, but that is not critical for a listing tool.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage (numero_processo as CNJ number, soap_setting_id as communication origin). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool 'Lista os documentos externos do processo judicial' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like baixar_documento_judicial and ler_documento_judicial by identifying the 'Pasta do Processo' scope and providing document examples.

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?

The description implies the use case (listing external judicial documents) but does not explicitly compare with alternative sibling tools or specify when not to use it. There are no named alternatives or exclusions, so 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.