obter_dispositivo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that it returns the text of a 'selected' provision, but does not explain how the selection is made, whether the four optional parameters are alternatives or combinable, or what happens when none is supplied. Minimal disclosure for a tool with zero structured hints.

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 no wasted words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than precision. It is front-loaded but contains almost no actionable content.

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 described. However, with four optional parameters at 0% coverage, no annotations, and no usage routing among many sibling retrieval tools, the description leaves too much unspecified for an agent 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 description coverage is 0% across four optional parameters (data, caminho, citacao, work_id), and the description never mentions any of them. It does not clarify that these are alternative selectors (date/path/quote/work id) for locating the provision, leaving the agent with four undocumented optional inputs and no guidance on which to use.

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 verb (obtém) and resource (o texto da redação selecionada), but 'redação selecionada' and 'documento oficial delimitado' are vague in English/Portuguese legal-tool terms and do not distinguish this tool from siblings like obter_decisao, obter_evidencia, or resolver_citacao. An agent can guess it retrieves legal text but cannot confidently place it in the family.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many retrieval siblings (resolver_citacao, verificar_citacao, obter_decisao, obter_evidencia). No prerequisites, no selection conditions, no exclusions. Only implied usage from the verb.

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