grafo_list_algorithm_families

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding what the tool does. No wasted words or complex structure.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on usage and behavioral details. For a simple list tool, it's passable but could be more informative about its role in the ecosystem.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary information.

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 action ('Lista' - lists) and the resource ('familias de algoritmos conhecidas para o modulo de grafos' - known algorithm families for the graph module). It's specific about what it retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'grafo_list_algorithms' or 'grafo_list_algorithm_enums' beyond the resource name.

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 sibling tools like 'grafo_list_algorithms' and 'grafo_describe_algorithm_family', there's no indication of whether this lists high-level families while others list specific algorithms or provide details. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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