Status do PJe-Calc

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the closing 'Não altera nada' merely restates that. Beyond the structured data, the description adds real behavioral value: it explains that the tool reads the log to produce a diagnosis (e.g. out-of-memory) and includes remediation guidance when the app is down, which tells the agent what a non-responding result actually contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with the reported fields listed first and the failure-path behavior second; every clause carries information. The only soft spot is the trailing 'e o que fazer', which is vague about whether remediation advice is data in the response or a directive to the agent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does: process state, port, reachability, version, database, and log-based diagnosis. Adequate for a zero-parameter read tool; it could be marginally stronger by stating the response shape (structured fields vs. free text) since no output schema exists.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing further the description could clarify. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports: Java processes, HTTP port, whether the application responds, version and database, plus log-derived diagnosis when it does not respond. That is a concrete verb+resource picture an agent can act on. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. pjecalc_logs or pjecalc_info) to distinguish overlapping diagnostic data, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers 'call this to check whether PJe-Calc is up and why it is not.' There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing to pjecalc_logs for raw logs or pjecalc_iniciar/pjecalc_parar for lifecycle actions, which are the obvious neighbors for the 'what to do' part.

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