graph_list

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds validation behavior: invalid capability_ids, unsupported filter fields, and arbitrary endpoints are rejected. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 short and front-loaded: the core definition comes first, followed by three crisp, non-redundant constraint lines. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 core calling flow and validation rules are covered well, but with no output schema the description omits return shape and pagination behavior. It also leaves limit and select semantics to inference, so the tool is usable but not fully self-contained.

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 compensate. It provides useful semantics for capability_id and filter, but limit and select remain completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a real gap.

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 opening sentence 'Lista objetos de uma capability catalogada' identifies a concrete operation and resource scope. The restriction 'Endpoints arbitrários são rejeitados' helps distinguish it from generic graph_query/graph_get tools, though the term 'capability catalogada' is not fully explained.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: capability_id must exist in the registry, and it names graph_discover_capabilities as the tool to find one. It also explicitly forbids arbitrary endpoints, giving a useful boundary, but it does not explicitly contrast with specific sibling list_* tools or graph_query.

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