detalhar_votacao

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 'obtains details' but doesn't specify what those details include (e.g., vote results, metadata, timestamps), whether it's a read-only operation, or if there are any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns structured data about votes.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns detailed vote information. It doesn't hint at the structure or content of the returned details (e.g., vote outcomes, participant lists, timestamps), leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand what to expect from invoking this 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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'ID da votação'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 'Obtém detalhes de uma votação específica' clearly states the verb ('Obtém detalhes') and resource ('votação específica'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_votacoes' (which likely searches for multiple votes) or 'votos_votacao' (which might get vote breakdowns), leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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 specific vote ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'buscar_votacoes' (for lists) or 'votos_votacao' (for vote details), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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