telematica_analytics_recent_groups

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 indicates this is a read operation ('retorna') and mentions optional period filters, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time threshold). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes the key detail about optional filters without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 context: 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values). The description covers the basic purpose and hints at period filters but misses details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and usage guidelines. It's minimally adequate for a read operation but incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation, especially with 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description only vaguely references 'filtros opcionais de periodo' (optional period filters), which might relate to 'data_inicio' and 'data_fim', but it doesn't explain any parameters like 'source_id', 'identificador_conta', or 'top_n'. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retorna grupos recentes da conta com filtros opcionais de periodo' (Returns recent groups from the account with optional period filters). It specifies the verb ('retorna'), resource ('grupos recentes da conta'), and scope ('com filtros opcionais de periodo'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_groups' or 'telematica_analytics_relevant_groups', which prevents a perfect score.

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. It mentions optional period filters but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'telematica_list_groups' (which might list all groups without recency filters) or 'telematica_analytics_relevant_groups' (which might focus on relevance rather than recency). This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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