telefonica_list_antennas

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. It states the tool lists data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's paginated (though parameters suggest it), what the output format is (though an output schema exists), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 function. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool, with no redundant or verbose language. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, but it's concise overall.

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's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral traits beyond a vague listing action. The output schema helps with return values, but the description should add more context about the data source and tool behavior to be fully adequate.

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%, meaning parameter titles like 'Src Id' and 'Identificador' are not explained in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean (e.g., 'src_id' might refer to a file identifier, 'identificador' could be an antenna ID), their expected formats, or how pagination works. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters 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 'Lista dados de antena de um arquivo da Telefonica' (Lists antenna data from a Telefonica file), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'dados de antena' specifically entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'telefonica_analytics_phones_by_antenna' or 'telefonica_list_connections', which also deal with Telefonica data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific file type), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'telefonica_list_files' or 'telefonica_analytics_phones_by_antenna'. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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