telefonica_list_supplemental

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a listing operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), or what happens if the file doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core action and target, with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more specific without losing conciseness.

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 has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation and behavioral context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning to parameters like 'src_id' or 'identificador'—it doesn't explain what these identifiers refer to, their format, or how they relate to the Telefonica file. It also doesn't clarify the purpose of pagination parameters, leaving them 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 'Lista dados suplementares de um arquivo da Telefonica' clearly states the action (list) and target (supplemental data from a Telefonica file), but it's somewhat vague about what 'supplemental data' specifically entails. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'telefonica_list_files' or 'telefonica_get_file', which might handle different aspects of 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 many sibling tools related to Telefonica data (e.g., 'telefonica_list_files', 'telefonica_get_file', 'telefonica_list_connections'), there's no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow or what makes it distinct for accessing supplemental data.

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