ler_chat_cap1g

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the operation is non-blocking and scoped to an ongoing chat, but it does not cover edge cases like missing/invalid chat references or the effect of the 'desde_id' parameter.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core behavior and immediately followed by the key exclusion ('sem esperar nem enviar nada'). Every part 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?

For a simple read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key decision factors: read-only, non-blocking, scoped to ongoing chat. The main gap is the absence of any input-parameter guidance, but this is a minor omission given the low complexity.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter details. The parameter names 'referencia_chat' and 'desde_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the agent receives no guidance on their format, origin, or incremental-reading semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Lê estado e mensagens do chat em andamento' (reads state and messages of the ongoing chat). It also explicitly contrasts with waiting or sending, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling chat tools.

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 phrase 'sem esperar nem enviar nada' communicates clearly when to use this tool: for non-blocking inspection only. It implicitly rules out uses handled by waiting/sending siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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