get_internal_communication

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves a communication with full text, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it is read-only. Minimal transparency 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 sentence of 8 words, very concise and efficient. It could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the parameters, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

The description mentions 'com texto completo' (with full text), indicating the return includes the full text, but it lacks details on other return information or error scenarios. For a simple get operation with no output schema, it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema, such as clarifying required fields or providing example values.

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 'Obter uma comunicação interna específica com texto completo' clearly states the verb 'obter' (get) and the resource 'comunicação interna' (internal communication). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_internal_communications (list) and create_internal_communication (create) by specifying a single specific communication.

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 retrieving a single communication by ticket_number and communication_id, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus listing or creating. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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