buscar_status_contato

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'buscar' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated. The description does not mention safety, idempotency, or any side effects. For a tool that likely retrieves static status options, the description leaves the agent unsure about mutability or permissions.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is slightly too brief given the lack of other documentation. It could be expanded to include parameter info or usage context without being verbose.

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?

Considering no output schema, no annotations, and one undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (likely a list of status options), whether pagination is supported, or how to handle the 'pagina' parameter. The agent is left guessing about the tool's full behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameter 'pagina'. The parameter name suggests it is a page number for pagination, but no explanation is given about its purpose, default behavior (default 1), or how to use it. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the schema's property name.

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 the action (buscar) and the resource (status de contato) in the context of Ploomes CRM. It is specific enough to indicate a read operation for status options, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'buscar_tipos_contato' or 'buscar_origens_contato' which also fetch reference data for contacts. The name itself provides differentiation, so purpose is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. other contact-related tools. There are no examples, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone without context on alternatives or conditions.

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