declarar_relacion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. While it states the tool declares a relationship 'sin pasar por texto crudo' (without raw text), it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether relationships are persisted, overwritten, or if they affect existing data), nor does it mention any authentication or rate limits. A mutation tool describing its behavioral impact is essential here.

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 two sentences that front-load the core purpose and include a practical usage note. Every sentence adds value, and no extraneous information is present.

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?

With a 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present (but not described), the description is incomplete. The user must guess parameter semantics, return format, and side effects. For a tool with 2 required params and no visual hints from sibling names, this is inadequate.

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%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for parameters 'a' and 'b'. The description does not specify what each parameter represents (e.g., term IDs, names, or URIs) or any constraints. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful semantics beyond 'dos terminos'.

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 declares a relationship (co-occurrence) between two terms. It specifies that it avoids raw text, distinguishing it from text-processing tools. However, it could further differentiate from 'procesar_consulta' or 'consultar' by noting that this is specifically for explicit co-occurrence relationships.

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 description mentions it's useful for scripting and integrations, implying a programmatic use case. However, it provides no guidance on when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if raw text analysis is needed) or how it relates to siblings like 'procesar_consulta'. The phrase 'sin pasar por texto crudo' hints at an alternative approach but doesn't name alternatives.

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