create_internal_communication

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action. With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for transparency, yet it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/error. The only behavioral hint comes from the schema 'text' parameter about Markdown conversion, but that is not in the description.

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, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded, stating the action and target immediately.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, any constraints (e.g., file size limits from schema are not mentioned), or prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist). The combination of missing output schema and sparse description leaves gaps in understanding the complete behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific information; it is a single sentence about the overall tool purpose. Since the schema already describes all parameters thoroughly, the description adds no extra value.

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 'criar' (create) and resource 'comunicação interna em um ticket específico' (internal communication on a specific ticket). It is not a tautology and adds specificity by mentioning the ticket context. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'create_ticket_answer' or 'create_ticket', which have overlapping purposes.

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 is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., ticket existence), expected context, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'get_internal_communication' and 'create_ticket_answer' imply different use cases, but the description offers no differentiation.

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