cx

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but silence on what the non-read action actually does. The description fills exactly that gap: 'trocar' disconnects the current session and requires re-login, a side effect an agent must know before invoking. It does not say what happens if no account is connected or whether the switch can fail, so it is useful but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences with no filler: the content overview comes first, then the risky action. The telegraphic, unpunctuated style is hard to parse for non-Portuguese readers and omits an explicit subject/verb, but nothing is wasted.

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 single enum parameter with no output schema, the description does list what the response contains (email, folders with totals and unread, categories), which is the main thing needed. It still omits the not-connected state and whether 'info' returns anything else, leaving a small but real gap.

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% but the schema description for 'acao' is merely 'info ou trocar', restating the enum. The prose adds real semantics by explaining that 'trocar' triggers a disconnect and a new login, which the enum alone does not convey. 'info' is left unexplained, though it is inferable from the default field listing.

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 name 'cx' and null title carry zero meaning on their own, and the description is a noun-phrase listing of fields ('email, pastas com totais e não lidos, categorias') rather than an explicit verb+resource statement. An agent can infer this reports the connected account's state, but only by interpretation, not by a stated action.

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 second sentence implicitly tells when to use the 'trocar' branch — it disconnects and prompts for another account's login, which signals it is a deliberate switch, not a passive read. There is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling tools (ls, find, att) nor any advice on defaulting to 'info', so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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