resolver_citacao

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits: on-demand capture (a network/fetch side effect) and a possible local cache write. It says nothing about failure modes (unresolvable citation), latency, permissions, or whether the cache write is idempotent, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with a filesystem side effect.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the side effect. No padding or restated boilerplate, though the parenthetical could be phrased more informatively rather than as a terse aside.

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 the description correctly needn't detail return values, and it does summarize the key outputs plus the cache side effect. What remains missing is guidance on failure cases and the distinguish-from-siblings role that a 1-param resolver among 11 related tools really needs.

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, so the description must compensate. It characterizes the input as a 'citação normativa' and reveals what the resolution yields (work_id and path), which adds real meaning — but it never gives the accepted citation syntax or format, so the agent cannot know what a valid string looks like.

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: it resolves a normative citation into work_id and path, which is concrete and actionable. However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling verificar_citacao (verify citation), leaving an agent to guess which one to call for a citation-related task.

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 parenthetical '(captura sob demanda)' hints that this tool fetches material when it isn't cached, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no routing away from verificar_citacao or buscar_legislacao. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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