telefonica_list_messages

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 (list) without detailing traits like whether it's read-only, paginated (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and potential data retrieval complexity.

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 without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by including key details. It earns its place but is slightly under-specified.

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, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema may cover return values, reducing the need for output details in the description. However, it lacks crucial context like parameter explanations and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective use without additional documentation.

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 details. The description adds no information about parameters like 'src_id', 'identificador', 'pagina', or 'itens_por_pagina', failing to explain their meanings, formats, or how they interact. This leaves all 4 parameters undocumented, which is inadequate given the low coverage.

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 mensagens de um arquivo da Telefonica' clearly states the action (list) and resource (messages from a Telefonica file), but it's vague about what 'mensagens' specifically refers to (e.g., SMS, call logs, metadata) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'telefonica_list_voice' or 'telefonica_list_connections'. It provides a basic purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it relates to other 'telefonica_list_' tools or when to choose it over analytics-focused siblings. Usage is implied by the name alone, with no explicit instructions.

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