grafo_ver_corpus

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds real value beyond them: the output is a written HTML file that opens in a browser, hover interactivity, and the returned file path. Minor tension with readOnlyHint since it writes a file, but that is an output artifact rather than a state mutation, so it is not a true contradiction.

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?

Front-loads the trigger phrases before the mechanics, and the second sentence efficiently covers the artifact, its behavior, and the return value. Slightly dense but no wasted filler.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden ('Devuelve la ruta del archivo') and explains the artifact's form. Only minor details (absolute vs relative path, whether it auto-opens) are left unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (including the PageRank-based default of 250). The description only restates the corpus-vs-subgraph distinction of 'consulta', adding little beyond the schema — the baseline 3 is 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?

States a concrete verb+artifact: writes an interactive HTML file of nodes/relations with hover detail, for the full corpus or a query subgraph. An agent can tell this apart from the graphify_* siblings (which query/analyze the graph) because this one produces a browsable visualization artifact.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrasings ('mostrame el grafo', 'cómo se ve el corpus', 'graficá el conocimiento jurídico'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g. graphify_consulta_subgrafo) or state when not to use it.

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