votacoes_evento

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 it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of vote objects). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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: 'Lista as votações ocorridas em um evento'. It's front-loaded with the purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., output format, error cases) and usage guidelines relative to siblings, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly without structured output information.

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 mentions 'em um evento' (in an event), which aligns with the single parameter 'id' described in the schema as 'ID do evento'. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameter well, so the description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing the context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Lista as votações ocorridas em um evento' clearly states the verb ('Lista') and resource ('votações'), specifying it's for votes that occurred in an event. It's specific enough to understand the core function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_votacoes' or 'votacoes_proposicao', which might have overlapping purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'buscar_votacoes' (search votes), 'votacoes_proposicao' (votes on a proposition), and 'detalhar_votacao' (detail a vote), the description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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