grafo_describe_algorithm_family

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 at a high level ('describes') without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, what format the output takes, potential errors, or performance considerations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action. However, while concise, it's under-specified—the brevity comes at the cost of missing important details that would help an agent use the tool correctly.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may document return values, the description fails to address parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral aspects. For a tool that presumably provides descriptive information about algorithm families, more guidance is needed to make it usable.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'familia' with 0% description coverage (no schema description), and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't explain what 'familia' represents, valid values, or how to specify it. With low schema coverage and no compensatory details in the description, parameter understanding is severely lacking.

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 'Descreve uma familia de algoritmos do modulo de grafos' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'grafo_describe_algorithm_family' in Portuguese. It specifies the verb 'descreve' (describes) and resource 'familia de algoritmos' (algorithm family) but lacks specificity about what information is provided or how it differs from siblings like 'grafo_describe_algorithm' or 'grafo_list_algorithm_families'. The purpose is clear but overly vague and doesn't distinguish from related tools.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'grafo_list_algorithm_families' (which might list families) or 'grafo_describe_algorithm' (which might describe individual algorithms). Without any usage instructions, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately in different scenarios.

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