Mapa do processo (fase e processos ligados)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: it is an analysis tool that flags process numbers missing from the map, prescription conflicts, already-decided parcels, RJ deadlines, debtors, and execution payments. It does not disclose return format or any rate/permission constraints, keeping it at 4.

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-loaded with the core action, then elaborates. The parenthetical enumerations of phase, trabalho, and linked-process types are long and make it dense, but they carry genuine domain signal rather than filler, so it stays appropriately sized.

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 burden, and it does explain what the tool detects and flags. It also points to pjecalc://docs/modulos/processo for depth. It is strong for a complex domain tool, though it leaves the two input parameters unexplained.

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% (arquivo_json and especificacao are both documented), so the baseline is 3. The description never references either parameter or their file-vs-inline JSON alternatives, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Confere o mapa do processo em contrato.processos') and then delimits the exact scope: the main process with its phase/trabalho enums and all linked processes. An agent can tell precisely what this tool inspects, and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like calculo_validar or calculo_pendencias.

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 a clear directive on timing: 'Use logo no começo (etapa 0)', which orients the agent within the workflow. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so the routing guidance stops short of full 5-level completeness.

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