aya_memoria_grafo_abrir

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

The annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and idempotent, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds little behavioral context beyond 'opens', failing to disclose what the operation returns, how relationships are included, or any side effects or limitations.

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 redundant wording. It front-loads the core operation and resource, making it easy to scan, though it could use a second sentence to resolve ambiguity.

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 large set of graph-related sibling tools and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support correct selection and invocation. It does not differentiate this tool from read, search, or observe variants, nor does it specify what an agent should expect after calling it.

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, the description must compensate for the bare 'ids' parameter. It does clarify that the ids refer to entities and the relationships between them, but it does not explain expected formats, whether both entity and relationship ids are mixed, or how many are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('abre') and a resource ('entidades especificas e relacoes'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'abrir' is ambiguous: it does not state whether the tool returns, loads, or presents the data, nor how it differs from sibling tools like aya_memoria_grafo_ler or aya_memoria_grafo_buscar.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many graph-related siblings. It provides no conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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