relacionados

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result set includes links to notes that don't yet exist, which is genuinely non-obvious behavior, but the rest of the enumeration largely restates return content that the output schema already carries.

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 front-loaded sentence names the core action first ('Mostra a vizinhança de uma nota no grafo') and then lists the components via a colon. The list is a bit long but each item describes a distinct relation type, so it earns its space.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and reassuring annotations, the definition is minimally adequate: what it returns is clear. It falls short on parameter meaning and on guiding the agent toward this tool versus the other graph/query siblings.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It implies that 'nota' identifies the note whose neighborhood is shown, but never explains the 'limite' parameter (default 12) or the expected format of 'nota'.

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 ('Mostra a vizinhança de uma nota no grafo') and then enumerates the five relation types returned, so an agent knows exactly what this surfaces. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like 'consultar_grafo', 'caminho', or 'buscar' that also traverse graph relationships.

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 only characterizes the output and gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions that select it over alternatives, and no exclusions. With several graph-oriented siblings present, this is a meaningful gap.

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