Caminos entre dos entidades

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's added context is valuable: it discloses that paths are acyclic, may traverse in any direction, and are ordered shortest-first. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or result structure, but the traversal semantics it adds go meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The traversal constraints are packed efficiently into parentheses and every clause contributes to the tool's core meaning.

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 six-parameter graph traversal tool with no output schema, the description covers the core traversal behavior but omits guidance on when to use it versus related graph tools and gives no sense of the returned path structure. The rich schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, so it is adequate but with 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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter explanation in the description. The description only implies that source_id and target_id identify the two entities; it adds no semantics beyond what the schema already documents for case_id, limit, max_depth, and response_format.

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 gives a specific verb ('Encuentra') and resource ('caminos') scoped to two entities, which distinguishes it from single-entity siblings like osint_get_neighbors and osint_expand_entity. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no named alternative. The phrase 'entre dos entidades' implies the use case but does not tell an agent when to choose this tool over osint_get_neighbors or osint_expand_entity.

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