grafo_list_graphs

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 this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but it doesn't confirm this or describe other behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic listing.

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, concise sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it efficient to parse. However, it could be slightly improved by adding more context without losing conciseness, but it's well-structured for its brevity.

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 an output schema (which likely describes return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and a list operation that may involve pagination and filtering, the description is incomplete—it lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and differentiation from siblings. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no descriptions for the 4 parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'por caso ou criador,' which hints at the purpose of 'caso_id' and 'criado_por_id' parameters, but it doesn't explain 'pagina' or 'itens_por_pagina' (page and items per page) or provide details on parameter usage, formats, or constraints. This insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Lista grafos do modulo de grafo por caso ou criador' clearly states the action (list) and resource (graphs from the graph module), but it's vague about what 'grafos' specifically refers to (e.g., graph objects, visualizations, data structures) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'grafo_get_graph' or 'grafo_list_labels', which might have overlapping purposes. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 mentions filtering 'por caso ou criador' (by case or creator), implying usage based on these parameters, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'grafo_get_graph' for retrieving a single graph or other list tools in the server. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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