novacrm_list_clients

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it confirms pagination and store scoping, which is useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, result ordering, or whether totals are returned. Adequate for a simple list tool but not rich.

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 the core action and scoping front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified rather than overly long.

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 3-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what is listed, pagination) supported by complete schema docs. It leaves gaps an agent might want: sort order, what a page contains, and archived default behavior (only found in schema).

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 100%, so limit, offset, and includeArchived are already fully documented with ranges and defaults. The description's mention of pagination aligns with the schema but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Lista clientes da loja") and mentions pagination, which separates it from mutation siblings like create_client/update_client. It does not explicitly contrast with get_client or import_clients, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 listing nature implies when to use it (enumerating clients rather than fetching one), but the description never says when to prefer novacrm_get_client for a single record or how it relates to import_clients. Usage is inferable from the name only.

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