telematica_list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing action without mentioning pagination behavior (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'device' in this context. For a tool with parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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. While it could be more informative, it's appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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 need to describe return values) but no annotations and poor parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the domain and action but lacks sufficient context about behavior, parameter usage, and differentiation from siblings to be fully helpful for an 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meanings or usage. It doesn't explain what 'registro_ids' represents, how pagination works, or the relationship between parameters. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 dispositivos de registros da Telematica' clearly states the action (list) and resource (devices from Telematica records), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_connections' or 'telematica_list_contacts', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this device listing from other list operations in the same domain.

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 multiple sibling tools in the Telematica domain (e.g., telematica_list_connections, telematica_list_contacts), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately among similar listing functions.

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