get_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a card with specific fields, which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm read-only operation, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The lack of explicit safety info is a gap.

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 concise sentence in Portuguese that immediately states the purpose and return value. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description adequately covers the purpose and return content. However, it lacks information about error cases (e.g., chat not found) or permission requirements, which would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a thorough parameter description explaining that the ID accepts numeric strings and that the handler parses them. This adds value beyond the type definition.

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 tool retrieves a specific chat by ID and returns a card with status, client, responsible, department, origin, evaluation, and dates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_inbox_chats or get_ticket.

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 for fetching a single chat by ID but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_my_chats or list_in_attendance_chats. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool references are given.

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