telematica_list_records

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 states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe other behaviors like pagination (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with null parameters. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 and filtering options. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and some parameter hints but lacks details on behavior, full parameter semantics, and output (though an output schema exists). For a list tool with multiple filtering and pagination options, this leaves the agent with incomplete guidance, though the existence of an output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions filtering by 'origem/controle' (likely mapping to 'source_id' or 'identificador') and 'usuario' (likely mapping to 'criado_por_id'), adding some semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain the two pagination parameters ('pagina', 'itens_por_pagina') or provide details on parameter interactions, leaving significant gaps.

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' - List) and resource ('registros da Telematica' - Telematica records), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specifically differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_connections', 'telematica_list_contacts', etc., which all list different Telematica entities.

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 implies usage context by mentioning filtering 'por origem/controle ou por usuario' (by source/control or by user), suggesting this tool is for listing records with those specific filters. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus other Telematica list tools or alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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