Generar DOT (ER)

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 only mentions the input and output concept ('Graphviz DOT from tables + FKs') but does not explain the return format, whether the operation is read-only, or any potential side effects or permissions. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second gives a clear actionable next step. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose and a downstream usage. However, it omits the effect of the schema parameter and does not describe the output format beyond 'Graphviz DOT', leaving some gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not mention the 'schema' parameter at all. The default value 'public' is only in the schema, and the description gives no indication of what this parameter controls or how to use it correctly.

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 generates Graphviz DOT from tables and foreign keys, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables or list_foreign_keys by focusing on producing a DOT representation for ER diagrams.

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 provides a downstream instruction ('Pásalo a diagram-studio render_diagram engine=graphviz') which implies a workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than directly compared with siblings.

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