Estado da conexao

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it reassures no sensitive data is exposed and that it still responds when the token is invalid, which is important for diagnosing auth failures. It stops short of describing pagination or limits' semantics.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads what is shown and ends with the key caveat about invalid tokens. No filler, no tautology.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (account, mode, gateway, channels, cursors, limits, statistics). Combined with annotations covering safety and the fully-described single parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the return shape's exact structure is left implicit.

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% — the single 'format' enum parameter is fully documented in the schema with the text (default) vs json distinction. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Mostra') and enumerates the concrete resource set: connected account, mode (user/bot), live gateway, watched channels, cursors, limits and statistics. An agent can tell this is a diagnostics/status tool, clearly distinct from the messaging and guild-management siblings. It lacks an explicit sibling comparison, but the enumeration makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit 'use this when' or 'don't use for X' guidance is given, but the content list plus 'Responde mesmo com o token invalido' strongly implies a connectivity/diagnostics use case, including troubleshooting when auth fails. Usage is inferable but never stated as a condition.

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