telefonica_get_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('busca') without detailing whether this is a read-only fetch, if it requires authentication, what happens on failure, or the format of the returned file. For a tool that likely retrieves data, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's action and parameters. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured if it included additional context.

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 tool has an output schema (which likely describes the returned file), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is minimal—it states the action and parameters but lacks details on behavior, usage, or parameter meaning, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'por src_id e identificador' (by src_id and identifier), adding minimal semantic context about what these parameters represent. However, it doesn't explain their purpose, format, or examples, leaving them largely undocumented.

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 the tool 'busca um arquivo da Telefonica' (searches for a Telefonica file) which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'busca' entails (retrieves, fetches, searches metadata?) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'telefonica_get_file_status' or 'telefonica_list_files' that might handle related file operations.

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 description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'telefonica_list_files' (for listing) or 'telefonica_get_file_status' (for status checks), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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