inspect_graph_region

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 does disclose the key traits "Solo lee" (read-only, no mutation) and the hard limit of "hasta 10" notas, which is genuine behavioral context. However it says nothing about permissions/auth needs, rate limits, or behavior on unknown/missing node names.

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?

Effectively two sentences, both front-loaded with the most important fact ("Solo lee") and the usage context. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical reason list is slightly compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, yet the description still outlines what comes back (neighbors, edge reasons, related, tags). Combined with the read-only statement, the parameter clarification, and the routing to propose_graph_change, an agent has enough to call it correctly without opening the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. It does so meaningfully by clarifying that each entry is a "nombre o ruta" (name or path) and that the array is capped at 10 items — information absent from the schema, which only says "array of string".

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?

"Solo lee: para cada nota pedida (nombre o ruta, hasta 10), sus vecinos en el grafo y por qué están unidos..." states a specific read verb plus the resource (graph region/neighbors) and the payload (edges with reasons, related, tags). It is immediately distinguishable from mutating siblings like propose_graph_change and propose_connection, which it even names.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use: "entender una zona del grafo antes de proponer un cambio con propose_graph_change" — naming the sibling alternative explicitly. It does not spell out a when-not-to-use case (e.g. use list_connections or vault_overview instead for global views), so it falls just short of a full 5.

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