sync_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden on its own. It discloses that the operation is asynchronous, requires the phone to be online, and that results are not returned directly but appear later in get_messages. This is useful context, though it does not mention possible errors or side effects.

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?

Three short sentences each add value: the action, the usage condition, and the asynchronous behavior. The most important information is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 description covers the core operational context: when to use, prerequisite, async nature, and where results appear. It is slightly incomplete only because parameter semantics are left undefined, but an output schema exists and the tool's purpose is clear.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters (chat, instance, quantidade). An agent must guess what 'quantidade' refers to or what 'instance' identifies, because neither the schema nor the description clarifies 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 identifies a specific action ('Pede ao celular o histórico antigo de uma conversa') and marks it as asynchronous, distinguishing it from the sibling get_messages. This lets an agent recognize exactly what the tool does and how it differs from normal message retrieval.

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?

It gives an explicit condition: use only when get_messages cannot reach the requested period because the platform keeps a short window. It also states a prerequisite (phone online) and postcondition (messages appear in get_messages after seconds/minutes), so the agent knows when and how to invoke it.

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