Inventário dos documentos (arquivos e páginas)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds meaningful context beyond them: that text-less pages are scans which must be VIEWED as images, that it emits a suggested contrato.documentos plus a contrato.leitura skeleton, and the classification rule for every page (used / irrelevant with reason / illegible with request).

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?

Front-loads the verb and output contents before workflow hints, and the semicolon-separated list keeps a fairly information-dense block readable. The nested parentheses (especially the long contrato.leitura clause) make it heavier than it needs to be, but nothing is truly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: it names the output artifacts, enumerates the inventory fields, states the page-classification requirement, and places the call in the workflow (etapa 2) with a link to further module docs. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without opening anything else.

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%, so pasta, prefixo, arquivos and processo are already documented (including the default "D" prefix). The description references contrato.processos only indirectly via "números de processo citados" and adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Lista cada arquivo") and immediately enumerates the exact per-file payload (sha256, page count, pages with/without text, probable type, cited case numbers), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like documento_texto and documento_imagens that operate on already-inventoried documents.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance ("Use logo que receber os documentos (etapa 2)") and points at supporting documentation (pjecalc://docs/modulos/leitura). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or an alternative tool, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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