grafo_list_algorithm_enums

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits: no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 purpose. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with no parameters.

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 zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what 'enums e valores relevantes' means and what format the output takes. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't leverage this to provide richer context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. With 100% schema description coverage (though empty) and no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain non-existent 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Lista' - lists) and resource ('enums e valores relevantes para o catalogo de algoritmos do modulo de grafos'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'grafo_list_algorithms' by focusing specifically on enums/values rather than algorithms themselves. However, it doesn't specify what format the listing takes or what 'relevant' means in this context.

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, when this information would be needed, or how it relates to other algorithm-related tools like 'grafo_describe_algorithm' or 'grafo_list_algorithms'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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