Informações do PJe-Calc

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that the payload includes a service token (sensitive) and spans many subsystems. It does not say whether the data is read from disk or requires a running installation, nor any cost/latency implications of gathering all of it.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core claim ('Identidade completa da instalação') followed by a compact enumeration of contents. Every item listed is informative; the list is long but each element is a distinct returned field, not filler.

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 must carry the return shape, and it does so by enumerating the major fields, including the token and TRT URLs. Annotations cover the safety profile and there are no parameters. The only missing piece is the static-vs-live source of the data and its relationship to the config_* siblings.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is empty and 100% covered by definition, and the description correctly implies a parameterless snapshot call.

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?

It states a clear resource (the installation's identity) and enumerates exactly what that means: jar version, modules, stack, ports, DataSource, JVM params, token, TRT URLs. An agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate from near-identical siblings such as config_portas, config_token, config_datasource, config_ler or pjecalc_status, which appear to overlap heavily.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. Given siblings like config_memoria, config_portas, config_token and pjecalc_status that plausibly return subsets of the same data, an agent has no way to know whether this is the aggregate overview or whether the narrower tools should be preferred.

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