obter_registro

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never declares that this is a read-only lookup, nor what happens when the record is absent ('encontrada' implies a found/not-found outcome but the negative path is unexplained). It hints that the response carries integrity and conference status, which is useful, but side effects, permissions, and error behavior stay undisclosed.

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?

Three short lines with no padding, and the resource statement is front-loaded before the input/output breakdown. The inline reference 'decisão 0075, 3.4' is cryptic but costs little space.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, one required identifier, a nested evidence structure, and no annotations, the description leaves too much open: the meaning of the conference check, the not-found behavior, and its place among twelve sibling lookup tools. The presence of an output schema offsets some return-value burden, but the core semantics remain thin.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names all three parameters and marks two as optional, but adds no meaning beyond the schema: it does not explain why evidence objects or a temporal basis must be supplied to a retrieval call, nor what 'conferência' validates against the record.

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 phrase 'Registro local da operação de verificação' identifies the resource (the local record of a verification run) and the mention of 'encontrada' with 'integridade e status de conferência' hints that this retrieves a record. However, no explicit verb of retrieval is used and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as obter_evidencia or obter_decisao, so an agent must infer the exact purpose.

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?

The description only describes the inputs; it never states when this tool should be chosen over obter_evidencia, obter_decisao, or verificar_citacao, nor any precondition such as a prior verification run. No when-not guidance is offered either.

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