ibot_get_chat_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the possible return states and that "done" carries the chat link, which is genuine behavioral context. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor any auth or rate-limit behavior, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the return-value detail. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must cover return values and it does list all four states plus the chat link for "done". It is nearly complete for a simple status lookup; only auth/polling guidance is missing.

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 100%: chat_add_id is documented with an example and its origin (obtained via ibot_get_chat_link), and phone_id has a default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 ("Verifica") and resource ("status do registro de um chat"), and the return values (pending, fetched, done, error) make the scope concrete. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling ibot_get_message_status by operating on a chat rather than a message, though it does not name that alternative.

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 status values (pending, fetched, done, error) imply a polling workflow after a chat registration, so usage is inferable. However, the description never states when to call this versus ibot_get_chat_link or ibot_get_message_status, and gives no exclusions.

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