tomticket_list_department_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Nao altera dados' (does not alter data), which is a useful safety signal. However, it does not mention authentication, permissions, side effects, or any other behavioral traits beyond read-only intent.

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 short and front-loaded: it states what the tool does, why it is used, and that it is non-destructive. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, usage context, and safety. It could go further by describing what the returned statuses look like, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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% and the only parameter, department_id, is described in the schema as 'Identificador do departamento.' The tool description reiterates the department concept but adds no deeper semantic detail, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 ('Lista status de um departamento') and a specific resource (department statuses), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_departments or list_department_categories. The phrase 'necessario para iniciar cronometro' adds concrete context about why this tool exists.

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 provides a clear usage context: this tool is needed before starting a timer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the department-status scope is distinct enough among siblings that an agent can infer when to choose it.

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