telefonica_list_files

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 provides no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what format the output takes, or any other behavioral characteristics. It's a bare minimum statement of function.

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 gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could benefit from being slightly more informative while maintaining efficiency.

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 this is a tool with one required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of files are being listed, what the output contains, or provide any context about the Telefonica data source. For a tool in a complex environment with many sibling tools, more context would be helpful.

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, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'por src_id' which indicates the parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain what src_id represents, what format it should be in, or provide any examples. This leaves significant ambiguity about the single required parameter.

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 action ('Lista arquivos') and resource ('da Telefonica'), but it's vague about what 'arquivos' specifically means in this context (e.g., call records, messages, documents). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'por src_id', but doesn't clearly differentiate from other Telefonica list tools like telefonica_list_antennas or telefonica_list_messages.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what other tools might be better for different scenarios. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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