modificaciones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explains the 'direccion' parameter and its values, but omits crucial details like output format, pagination, error handling, or any side effects. The agent lacks information about what to expect from the tool, making it less transparent.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with a key parameter explanation. Every word adds value, no redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose, then explains the direction parameter. Ideal for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what the graph looks like (e.g., structure, result format). It only covers direction, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value. For a two-parameter tool, completeness is lacking.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'direccion' parameter with its three enum values, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the required 'ref' parameter is not described; its purpose is only loosely inferred from the tool name and description. The compensation is partial, earning a mid score.

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 retrieves a modification graph of a norm from InfoLEG. The verb is implied by 'grafo de modificaciones', and it distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., buscar_normas, obtener_norma) which perform different actions on norms. However, it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'get' or 'retrieve').

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for modification queries but does not provide when-not-to-use scenarios or mention sibling alternatives like buscar_normas for general norm searching. The agent must infer context from tool name and siblings.

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