detalhar_proposicao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'obtém informações detalhadas' (gets detailed information), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, clear sentence: 'Obtém informações detalhadas de uma proposição legislativa.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. This makes it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's intent.

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 complexity of a legislative data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what 'informações detalhadas' includes (e.g., text, status, authors), how results are structured, or potential limitations. For a tool that likely returns rich data, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'id' documented as 'ID da proposição' (ID of the proposition). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain the ID format, source, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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's purpose: 'Obtém informações detalhadas de uma proposição legislativa' (Gets detailed information about a legislative proposition). It specifies the verb 'obtém' (gets) and the resource 'proposição legislativa' (legislative proposition), making the action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_proposicoes' (which likely searches for propositions) or 'detalhar_votacao' (which details votes), leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a proposition ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'buscar_proposicoes' for searching or 'resumo_tramitacao_proposicao' for summaries. This lack of context could lead to incorrect tool selection by an AI agent.

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