grafo_suggest_algorithms_for_graph

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 mentions suggesting algorithms based on graph metadata and an optional objective, but doesn't describe what the suggestion entails (e.g., ranking, filtering, explanations), whether it's a read-only operation, performance considerations, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key details (metadata and optional objective) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (suggesting algorithms based on graph context), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and how suggestions are generated. The output schema may help with return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for effective use without additional inference.

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%, meaning parameters 'grafo_id' and 'objetivo' have no descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics: it implies 'grafo_id' identifies the graph and 'objetivo' is an optional investigative objective, but doesn't clarify formats, constraints, or examples. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, the description doesn't adequately compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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: 'Sugere algoritmos para um grafo' (suggests algorithms for a graph) based on metadata and an optional investigative objective. It specifies the verb 'sugere' (suggests) and resource 'algoritmos para um grafo' (algorithms for a graph), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'grafo_list_algorithms' or 'grafo_describe_algorithm', which list or describe algorithms rather than suggest them based on graph context.

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 'com base em seus metadados e em um objetivo investigativo opcional' (based on its metadata and an optional investigative objective), suggesting it's for graph analysis tasks. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'grafo_list_algorithms' (which might list all available algorithms without context) or other graph-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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