totvs_departamentos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the specific return fields and endpoint, which is helpful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like performance, rate limits, or error handling.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no superfluous information. It front-loads the main action and provides necessary details efficiently.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields and endpoint. It is mostly complete, but lacks information about output format or potential errors, which would enhance completeness.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description does not need to explain them. It compensates by specifying the output fields. With 100% schema coverage and 0 parameters, baseline is 4, and the description meets expectations.

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 clearly states it lists departments/service areas with specific fields (key, label, nome, tags). It includes the endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that focus on tickets or users.

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 implies usage for retrieving department listings but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like totvs_contato or totvs_tickets_listar. Contextual usage hints are absent.

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