grafo_ver_caso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: it reads the folder, builds the graph, writes an HTML file, opens it in the browser, and reports skipped documents with reasons. It does not state potential file-system side effects in detail, but the main mutations are covered.

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 three sentences with no filler, front-loads the usage trigger, and then provides the process and observable output. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete: it identifies the input, the action, the artifact produced, the browser side effect, and what feedback the agent will receive about read/skipped documents.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces that ruta refers to the case folder but adds no new format, examples, or constraints beyond the 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 states a clear verb and resource: it reads a case folder and builds a graph, with an HTML output. It is clearly about case-folder graph generation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as grafo_ver_corpus or generar_grafo_vinculos.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool by listing natural-language triggers like «graficá este caso» and «mostrame el expediente como grafo». However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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