tipos_orgao

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies this is a read-only operation (listing types) and adds context about the organizational structure of the Câmara. However, it doesn't specify behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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 (simple list operation with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage well but could improve by specifying response format or behavioral constraints, though this is less critical for a read-only 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it compensates by explaining the purpose and usage context. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool with high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Lista') and resource ('tipos de órgãos da Câmara dos Deputados'), providing specific examples like comissões permanentes, CPIs, Mesa Diretora, etc. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'buscar_orgaos' by focusing on types rather than individual organs.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use para filtrar órgãos por tipo em buscar_orgaos ou entender a estrutura organizacional da Câmara.' It provides clear alternatives (e.g., use with 'buscar_orgaos') and context for organizational understanding.

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