grafo_list_kyt_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it lists configured KYT layers. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'list'), pagination behavior (though schema hints at it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'configured' entails. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational 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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes directly to stating what the tool does.

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 should document return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse—it doesn't explain parameter use, filtering logic, or behavioral context. It meets a bare minimum but leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about the three parameters (eh_ativo, pagina, itens_por_pagina), leaving their semantics completely undocumented. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of coverage, making parameter understanding reliant on inference from titles alone.

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 camadas KYT configuradas no modulo de grafo' clearly states the action (list) and resource (KYT layers in graph module), but it's somewhat vague about what 'KYT layers' specifically are and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'grafo_list_kyt_relationships' or 'grafo_list_labels'. It provides 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for filtering, or comparison to sibling tools like 'grafo_list_kyt_relationships'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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