GET cru na Graph API

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about token resolution ('com o token certo já resolvido'), but it does not explicitly mention read-only semantics, error behavior, or rate limits. GET semantics imply safety, but more detailed disclosure would be beneficial.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and usage context.

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?

As a generic fallback tool, the description adequately covers purpose, when to use, and token handling. It lacks explicit mention of response format, but given the open-ended nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema, this is less critical. The pagination parameter is documented in the schema.

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 100%, and each parameter has a description. The description itself adds little beyond the schema, though the note about token resolution provides relevant context for how authentication is handled. With schema doing the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Chamada GET direta') and resource ('qualquer nó/edge da Graph API'), clearly identifying this as a raw GET endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings by framing it as a fallback for metrics not covered by other tools, which makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use quando a métrica ou campo desejado não estiver coberto pelas outras tools.' This provides clear context and implies that specialized sibling tools are preferred when applicable, even though it doesn't list specific alternatives.

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