list_secretarias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it is a read operation (list) but does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 sentence of about 20 words, front-loading the action and resource. No wasted words; it efficiently communicates the core function and use case.

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 has only two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequately complete for a simple list operation. It explains the purpose and content but lacks details on output format or authentication needs. An output schema or more context would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters (token, cityId) having descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Obter' (get) and specifies the resource 'órgãos (secretarias) e assuntos cadastrados para a cidade'. It also explains the purpose: discovering IDs for e-SIC registration. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_ouvidorias and list_sics.

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 implies it is for obtaining IDs needed for e-SIC registration ('ideal para descobrir IDs necessários para registrar um e-SIC'), but does not explicitly state when to use or when to avoid this tool. No mention of alternatives among siblings.

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