aya_memoria_grafo_buscar

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that it searches entities, observations, and relations in persistent memory, but it does not describe matching semantics, result format, limits, or pagination.

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 sentence with no redundant words, and the action verb is front-loaded. For a one-parameter read-only search tool, this length is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and annotations cover its read-only/idempotent behavior, but the description leaves out return-value shape, query formulation details, and any distinction from graph 'ler'/'abrir' siblings. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%; the only parameter, 'consulta', is an undocumented required string. The description and parameter name imply it is the search query, but no detail is given about query syntax, language, exact vs semantic matching, or supported formats, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema coverage.

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 states a concrete action ('Busca') and a clear target ('entidades/observacoes/relacoes na memória persistente'), so the core purpose is identifiable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like aya_memoria_grafo_ler or aya_memoria_grafo_abrir, whose names also suggest reading graph memory.

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 given about when to use this search tool instead of other graph-memory tools. The use case must be inferred from the name and the verb 'Busca'; there are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative tool mentions.

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