telematica_list_contacts

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 read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination details (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output contains. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 3 parameters (1 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'contatos' or 'registros' mean, how pagination works, or provide any context beyond the basic action. The output schema helps, but the description should do more for a tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, leaving all 3 (registro_ids, pagina, itens_por_pagina) completely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the schema gap, making parameter understanding difficult.

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 contatos de registros da Telematica' clearly states the action (list) and resource (contacts from Telematica records), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_connections' or 'telematica_list_emails'. It doesn't specify what kind of contacts or what 'registros' means in this context.

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 like 'telematica_list_connections' or 'telematica_list_emails'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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