aya_memoria_grafo_ler

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'reads' aligns with that. It adds the resource (persistent graph) but nothing further about behavior, such as whether the graph is guaranteed to exist or how it is returned.

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?

One concise sentence in Portuguese, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read operation with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but incomplete: it lacks any differentiation from similarly named graph tools and says nothing about the return value (no output schema). More context would help the agent decide between 'ler' and 'abrir'.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no param explanation because none 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 clearly states it reads the project's persistent graph, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like aya_memoria_grafo_abrir or aya_memoria_grafo_buscar, leaving the agent uncertain which read-like tool to pick.

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 on when to use this tool versus named alternatives. With several graph-related siblings (abrir, buscar, upsert), the absence of any context for selection is a clear gap.

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