consultar_grafo

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it exposes ambiguities and truncations, documents the token budget estimate method (UTF-8/4), and bounds depth and direction.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and the mode trade-off before parameter detail, with no filler sentences. It is dense but each clause carries parameter or behavioral value; slightly compressed readability is the only cost.

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-value explanation is not required. For a 6-parameter, 0%-coverage tool the description covers ranges, enumerable relations, and truncation behavior well, leaving only sibling differentiation unaddressed.

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 the burden, and it largely does: depth 0–6, direction entrada/saida/ambas, tokens 128–16000 with the estimation scheme, and a full enumeration of the relations filter. Only 'modo' is addressed indirectly via the BFS/DFS phrasing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Busca e percorre arquivos/símbolos pelo grafo'), making the graph-navigation scope clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from graph-adjacent siblings like 'caminho', 'relacionados', or 'buscar', so the agent must infer 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?

It gives implied guidance via 'BFS amplia contexto; DFS segue ramos', which tells the agent when each mode is appropriate. But there is no explicit routing between this tool and the many sibling traversal tools, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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