telefonica_list_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Lista' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the connections data will be returned in. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from 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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps. It states what the tool does at a high level but doesn't provide enough context about parameters, usage scenarios, or behavioral characteristics for a tool with multiple undocumented parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'src_id' and 'identificador' represent, why they're required, or how the pagination parameters work. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving all parameters semantically undefined.

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 'Lista conexoes de um arquivo da Telefonica' clearly states the action (list) and resource (connections from a Telefonica file), but it's somewhat vague about what 'conexoes' specifically means in this context. It doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'telefonica_list_voice' or 'telefonica_list_messages' that also list items from Telefonica files.

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. With multiple Telefonica listing tools available (e.g., telefonica_list_voice, telefonica_list_messages, telefonica_list_antennas), there's no indication of what makes this specific tool appropriate for listing 'conexoes' rather than other data types.

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