grafo_list_algorithms

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. It states the tool lists algorithms with optional filtering, but doesn't describe what the output looks like (though an output schema exists), whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or requires specific permissions. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes the optional filtering feature. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or wasted space.

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 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter usage adequately. However, without annotations, it could benefit from mentioning behavioral aspects like pagination or permissions, though the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter by explaining that 'familia' is used for optional filtering. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides a title 'Familia'), this compensates well. However, it doesn't specify what values 'familia' accepts or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Lista algoritmos do modulo de grafos' (List algorithms from the graph module). It specifies the verb (list) and resource (algorithms), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'grafo_describe_algorithm' or 'grafo_suggest_algorithms_for_graph'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'grafo_list_algorithm_families', which is a related but distinct listing operation.

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 implies usage context by mentioning optional filtering by family ('opcionalmente filtrando por familia'), which suggests when to use this tool for filtered vs. unfiltered listings. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'grafo_list_algorithm_families' or 'grafo_describe_algorithm', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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