grafo_get_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for a graph by UUID, implying a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence in Portuguese ('Busca um grafo especifico por UUID.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets a baseline but could be more informative about when and how to use it effectively.

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 description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter 'grafo_id' is a UUID, which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic string type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail constraints like UUID version or validation rules.

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 'Busca um grafo especifico por UUID' clearly states the action (busca/search) and resource (grafo/graph) with a specific identifier method (por UUID/by UUID). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'grafo_list_graphs' or 'grafo_describe_algorithm' beyond the UUID specificity, making it clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 such as 'grafo_list_graphs' for listing graphs or other retrieval tools. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, offering minimal usage direction.

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