membros_orgao

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 lists members but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's a read-only operation, how pagination works (given 'pagina' and 'itens' parameters), what the output format looks like, or any rate limits or permissions required. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, 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 in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a listing tool, with zero waste or 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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, output format), usage context compared to siblings, and doesn't address the absence of an output schema. For a tool that likely returns a list of members with temporal filtering, more guidance is needed for effective agent use.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context, such as explaining how 'dataInicio' and 'dataFim' filter members by date or default behaviors, but it doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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: 'Lista os membros de um órgão da Câmara' (Lists the members of a Chamber body/organ). It specifies the verb ('Lista') and resource ('membros de um órgão'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'membros_frente' or 'membros_partido', which list members of other entities, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'membros_frente' for front members, 'membros_partido' for party members) or specify contexts where this tool is preferred. Usage is implied from the name and description alone, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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