verificar_chat_cap1g

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds the 'passive' and 'without opening conversation' behavioral details, which go beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't clarify potential latency or network behavior, but for a zero-parameter background check, this is acceptable.

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 sentence that is concise, informative, and front-loads the key point ('verifica passivamente') and the resource. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given that there are no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit statement about what the response indicates (e.g., boolean presence of operator), but the output schema likely covers that. The tool is simple, so this is adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no properties). The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't. The score is high because the absence of parameters is fully represented in the schema, and the description clarifies the tool's scope.

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 states a specific action ('verifica passivamente'), a resource (CAP1G), and the goal (whether an operator is in the chat), and adds a constraint ('sem abrir conversa'). It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like 'iniciar_chat_cap1g' and 'enviar_mensagem_chat_cap1g', though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 description implies this should be used before starting or engaging in a chat, and the 'passively' and 'without opening conversation' provide clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools for checking chat status.

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