telematica_list_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. The description only states it lists groups, offering no information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema), or what the output contains. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 purpose. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool, with no wasted words. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context, but as-is, it's concise and well-structured.

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 in the description), but with no annotations, 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and multiple sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate. It states the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective agent use without additional context.

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 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to explain what 'registro_ids' are, how pagination works, or the purpose of 'itens_por_pagina'. With low schema coverage, the description does not compensate, leaving parameters largely 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 grupos de registros da Telematica' clearly states the action (list) and resource (groups of records from Telematica), but it's somewhat vague about what 'groups' specifically means and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like telematica_list_records or telematica_list_connections. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the nature of these groups.

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 in the Telematica domain (e.g., telematica_list_records, telematica_list_contacts), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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