graph_from_evaluation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains that the tool builds an Architecture Graph from findings, which is the core behavior, but it does not state whether the graph is returned, persisted, or whether the operation affects existing state.

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 a compact one-line purpose statement followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds practical 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 inputs are fully covered and the output type is named, which is enough to call the tool correctly. However, because there is no output schema, the description could be even more complete by explicitly stating what the tool returns or whether it has side effects.

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 0%, but the description documents all four parameters meaningfully: findings include resource_id/resource_type/severity/policy, cost_map maps resource_id to monthly_cost, eval_id is the evaluation ID, and account is shown with an example. This fully compensates for the sparse input 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 uses a concrete verb ('Construye') and identifies a specific output ('Architecture Graph v0.4') plus the exact input source ('evaluación SOFE/findings'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like graph_from_terraform or graph_from_account.

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 phrase 'desde una evaluación SOFE' provides a clear usage context: this tool should be used when the agent has SOFE findings to convert into a graph. It does not explicitly say when to avoid it in favor of graph_from_terraform or graph_from_account, so it lacks an explicit when-not rule.

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