list_instances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly frames the operation as listing available instances, implying a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or mention any auth or server requirements. For a simple listing tool this is adequate but minimal.

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: the first states the core action, the second gives a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, has one optional boolean parameter, and an output schema is present, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers what is listed and why to call it, though it omits explicit parameter behavior. Overall it is sufficient 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?

The schema has one parameter, `apenas_conectadas`, with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter or explain what true/false does. The parameter title is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema description, adding no parameter-level meaning.

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') and a concrete resource ('as instâncias (números de WhatsApp) disponiveis no servidor uazapi'), and it explains the tool's purpose: discovering the value to pass in `instance` for other tools. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_chats and list_groups.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use para descobrir qual valor passar em `instance` nas outras tools.' This is clear usage guidance. It does not document when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended context is obvious from the sibling tool set.

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