grafo_list_kyt_relationships

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 this is a listing operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and doesn't provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with parameters.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a listing tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description doesn't provide enough context about filtering, pagination, or behavioral characteristics to be considered complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't mention filtering by active status ('eh_ativo'), pagination ('pagina'), or items per page ('itens_por_pagina'). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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' - list) and resource ('relacionamentos KYT configurados no modulo de grafo'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'grafo_list_kyt_layers' or 'grafo_list_graphs', but the specific mention of 'KYT relationships' provides some implicit distinction.

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. There are multiple 'grafo_list_' tools and 'kyt_' tools in the sibling list, but no indication of when this specific KYT relationships listing tool is appropriate versus other listing or KYT-related tools.

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