cliente_historico

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

The description mentions 'interactions' but does not disclose read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or side effects. With no annotations, the description fails to convey essential behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 very concise (one short phrase), which is positive, but it sacrifices informativeness. It could be expanded slightly to improve clarity without becoming verbose.

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 the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to specify what the history contains, how results are returned, or any constraints.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the required parameter 'codigo'. It is unclear whether this is a client code, interaction ID, or other identifier.

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 'Histórico de interações' indicates the tool returns interaction history, which aligns with the tool name. It vaguely distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cliente_cadastrar_historico' (create history) and 'cliente_detalhes' (details), but lacks specificity about the entity and scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many related tools (e.g., 'cliente_detalhes', 'cliente_cadastrar_historico'), but the description gives no context for selection.

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