generar_grafo_vinculos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the tool returns Mermaid code plus JSON, which is useful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about validations, failure modes, or how nodes/edges are normalized.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the action, the resource, the entity types and the return formats with no filler. Nothing here is wasted.

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 only three well-documented params and no output schema, the description covers what is needed by naming the two output artifacts (Mermaid + JSON). It is slightly incomplete in not hinting at input expectations or any constraints on node/edge validity.

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 100%, with nodes, edges and title each documented including example shapes, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no further syntax or format guidance, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (construye) and resource (red de vínculos societarios, políticos y judiciales entre personas, empresas y organismos) and even discloses the output format (Mermaid and JSON). It is clearly a graph-building tool distinct from read/view siblings like grafo_ver_caso or graphify_trazar_camino, though it never names those alternatives to sharpen the contrast.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives among the many graph-related siblings (grafo_ver_caso, graphify_*, graphify_god_nodes). Usage must be inferred entirely from the one-line purpose statement.

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