telematica_list_connections

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 states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or provide any additional behavioral context such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, straightforward sentence in Portuguese that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing 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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description's main job is to clarify purpose and usage. It minimally states what the tool does but lacks guidance on when to use it, parameter meanings, and behavioral context. For a tool with 3 parameters (one required) and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps, making it barely adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 three parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about what 'registro_ids', 'pagina', or 'itens_por_pagina' mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the listing. This leaves parameters completely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 conexoes de registros da Telematica' clearly states the action (list) and target (connections of Telematica records), which is adequate. However, it doesn't specify what 'conexoes' means in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_contacts' or 'telematica_list_devices', leaving some ambiguity about the exact resource being listed.

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 like 'telematica_list_contacts' and 'telematica_list_devices' that also list Telematica data, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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