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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the operation, defaults, and return format, and the verb 'explora' implies a read-only action. However, it does not explicitly state that no mutations occur, nor does it mention error behavior or limits beyond max_nodes.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence overview followed by clear parameter details. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, and the return format (ASCII tree). It is sufficiently complete for a tool with simple integer parameters, though it could mention edge cases such as depth=0 or behavior when node_id is not found.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: node_id as the root memory ID with a special 0 value for a general view, depth with default and maximum, and max_nodes with default. This adds meaningful semantic detail beyond the plain integer 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 tool explores the memory graph from a root node, with a specific return format (ASCII tree). It is distinguishable from sibling search/query tools by emphasizing graph traversal and the general view when node_id is 0, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like search_hipocampo or path_hipocampo. The description explains the parameters and special behavior for node_id=0, but does not provide usage context or selection criteria.

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