Info da conversa

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by listing the metadata types returned (type, group), but does not disclose any side effects, error conditions, or additional constraints. Since the annotation covers the safety profile, the description adds only a small amount of value.

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 concise phrase, directly stating the tool's output without redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it is more of a fragment than a full structured sentence.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return content (metadata with type and group) and the annotation covers safety. The lack of details on formatting or errors is acceptable given the tool's simplicity, though a full sentence explaining the action would improve 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?

The description does not mention the chat_id parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's meaning solely from its 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 'Metadados da conversa (tipo, grupo)' clearly identifies the tool as retrieving conversation metadata, specifying the fields 'type' and 'group'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_messages or send_message, though it remains terse and could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'retrieves').

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_chats or get_messages), nor does it state any prerequisites or context where this tool is the appropriate choice.

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