graph_hipocampo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (ASCII tree), parameter limits (depth max 5, max_nodes default 50), and node_id=0 behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe potential side effects or errors.

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 concise, with a clear initial sentence, structured args section, and returns section. Every line earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 graph exploration tool, the description adequately covers parameters and return format. It lacks usage alternatives and does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but given the output schema and 0% schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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?

All three parameters are fully explained beyond the schema, including defaults, max constraints, and special behavior for node_id=0. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 explores the memory graph from a root node and returns an ASCII tree. It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like search_hipocampo, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_hipocampo or path_hipocampo. It mentions the special case of node_id=0 for overview but doesn't provide context or exclusions.

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