explicar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: every relation carries provenance tagged EXTRACTED (present in code) or INFERRED (deduced), which tells the agent how to weigh the returned data.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose before listing the relation types and trailing provenance note. Every clause carries information; there is no filler, though the enumeration is long.

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?

With an output schema present, the return format need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose, target flexibility, and output provenance, leaving only when-to-use guidance missing.

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% and the schema only shows 'alvo' as a bare string. The description compensates by clarifying that the target can be a file ARQUIVO or a symbol, adding semantics the schema lacks. It is a single required parameter, so this is nearly sufficient.

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 ('explica') and resource ('um ARQUIVO (ou símbolo) pelo grafo') and enumerates the exact relation types returned (defines, imports, callers, NOTE/WHY/HACK comments, citing decisions, similar files). This content inventory implicitly separates it from siblings like 'relacionados' or 'impacto', though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No 'when to use' context is given and no alternative tool is named. An agent must infer from the description alone that this is the tool for obtaining a graph-backed explanation of a file/symbol, with nothing said about when to prefer 'relacionados', 'consultar_grafo', or 'impacto' instead.

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