grafo_describe_algorithm

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. The description only states what the tool does ('describes') but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits - whether this is a read-only operation, what format the description returns, whether it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it's under-specified in terms of content, what's present is efficiently structured.

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 tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values in the description), but with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It provides the basic purpose but misses crucial context about parameter usage, behavioral characteristics, and differentiation from alternatives. The existence of an output schema prevents this from being a complete failure.

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%, meaning neither parameter has any description in the schema. The tool description provides no information about the 'familia' and 'algoritmo' parameters - what they represent, what values they accept, or their relationship. With 2 required parameters and zero schema documentation, the description fails to compensate for this significant 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 description states the tool 'describes a specific algorithm from the graph module' which provides a basic purpose (verb+resource). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'grafo_describe_algorithm_family' or 'grafo_get_algorithm_help' - it's unclear what differentiates 'describe' from 'get help' or 'describe family'. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools in the 'grafo' family (describe_algorithm_family, get_algorithm_help, list_algorithms, suggest_algorithms_for_graph), there's no indication of when this specific describe_algorithm tool is appropriate versus those other options. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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