telematica_list_ips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states it's a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't specify pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description lacks crucial behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 that efficiently states the core action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 handles return values) and moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details, making it insufficient for optimal agent understanding without relying heavily on the schema.

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 adds no information about the three parameters (registro_ids, pagina, itens_por_pagina), failing to explain what registro_ids are, how pagination works, or default values. This leaves 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 clearly states the verb ('Lista') and resource ('enderecos IP de registros da Telematica'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_connections' or 'telematica_list_records', which also list Telematica data but for different resources.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'telematica_get_record' or 'telematica_analytics_by_account', leaving the agent to infer usage 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.