historico_dispositivo

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 discloses the conceptual shape of the result (a timeline) but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, how far back history goes, ordering, pagination, or what happens when the citation is ambiguous or unresolvable.

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 short sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, a 0%-covered parameter, and no usage guidance among many similar legal-research siblings, the definition is only minimally sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'citacao' parameter. The phrase 'dispositivo citado' hints that the argument is a citation to a provision, but no format, syntax, examples, or resolution behavior (e.g., whether a bare article reference is accepted) are given to compensate for the undocumented 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: a timeline of versions ('redações') and events for the cited provision, which is distinct from obter_dispositivo (current text) and resolver_citacao (citation resolution). It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but an agent can still infer what it returns.

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, no prerequisite, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (obter_dispositivo for the current text, resolver_citacao for normalizing the citation). The agent must guess that this tool is the one for historical/versioning questions.

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