caminho

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-open-world, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it preserves all relations of each hop, and explicitly states similarity is NOT treated as a dependency, which meaningfully shapes result interpretation.

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?

Three short, dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information, though the compactness comes at the cost of leaving the tokens parameter unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main gap is the undocumented 'tokens' parameter against 0% schema coverage, otherwise the definition is adequate for invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the endpoint arguments (files/notes/symbols, with file::Class.method syntax) and enumerates the 'direcao' values (ambas/saida/entrada), but leaves the 'tokens' parameter completely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource: it finds a 'caminho' (path) between files, notes or symbols, and clarifies the symbol notation (arquivo::Classe.metodo). This is clearly a path-tracing tool, distinguishable from graph listing siblings, though it never names an alternative sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling (consultar_grafo, impacto, onde, relacionados) is named as an alternative. The direction and similarity notes hint at scope but do not tell an agent when to reach for this tool over its neighbors.

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