graph_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context (arbitrary endpoints rejected, filter limited to capability-declared fields), but says nothing about pagination, result size, or limit behavior.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the constraint on capability_id and filter is stated directly. Efficient for the information conveyed, though the parenthetical operation note is slightly redundant.

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 no output schema, 0% schema coverage and four parameters, the description should do more: it never explains return shape, pagination, or the semantics of 'limit'/'select'. Annotations cover the safety profile, but an agent still lacks guidance on two parameters and the response format.

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 explains 'capability_id' (must exist in registry) and 'filter' (only capability-declared fields), but leaves 'limit' and 'select' completely unaddressed, covering only half the parameters.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('objetos de uma capability catalogada') and notes it maps to the 'list' operation, which distinguishes it reasonably from graph_get and graph_query. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('capability_id' must exist in the registry, use graph_discover_capabilities) and a constraint on 'filter', which is useful context for invocation. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over graph_query, graph_get, or the many domain-specific list_* siblings.

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