grafo_ver_caso

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

The description explicitly states that the tool writes a file ('escribe un HTML que se abre en el navegador'), which modifies the environment, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. These two statements cannot both be true, so this is an annotation contradiction. The otherwise useful behavioral detail (which documents were read/skipped and why) does not repair the conflict.

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?

Three sentences: triggers, mechanics, and reporting behavior. It is front-loaded with usage rather than purpose, and the three quoted trigger phrases largely restate one another, but the whole thing is short and every sentence contributes.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains the workflow and what the report contains (documents read and skipped, with reasons). It omits where the HTML is written and whether it opens automatically, minor gaps for a one-parameter visualization tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Carpeta del caso (con sus documentos)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only the redundant observation that it reads the folder; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete verb chain and resource: it reads a case folder, builds a graph (document = node, sections hanging off it) and writes an HTML. The 'caso' scoping implicitly separates it from the sibling grafo_ver_corpus, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('graficá este caso', 'mostrame el expediente como grafo', 'cómo se ve esta carpeta') plus the general condition 'quieran ver las relaciones entre los documentos de un caso'. There is no when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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