telefonica_get_file_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('returns status'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'status' entails (e.g., processing state, metadata). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 2 required parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal. It states the basic purpose but lacks crucial context about parameter usage, behavioral characteristics, and differentiation from sibling tools. The existence of an output schema raises this from a lower score.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (src_id and identificador) with 0% description coverage in the schema (titles only). The description provides no information about these parameters - it doesn't explain what they represent, their format, or how they identify the file. With low schema coverage (<50%), the description fails to compensate by adding any parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retorna o status de um arquivo da Telefonica' (Returns the status of a Telefonica file). It specifies the verb ('retorna' - returns) and resource ('arquivo da Telefonica' - Telefonica file), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telefonica_get_file' or 'telefonica_list_files', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to similar tools like 'telefonica_get_file' (which presumably retrieves file content) or 'telefonica_list_files' (which lists files). There's no context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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