grafo_ver_corpus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the main side effect: it writes an HTML file that opens in the browser and returns the file path. It also describes the visualization features, though it omits details like file cleanup, permissions, or persistence.

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 compact and front-loaded with the usage trigger, then states behavior, scope, and return value in a single efficient paragraph. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description appropriately states that it returns the file path and explains the generated artifact. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with sibling graph tools, but the core behavior, input scope, and output are sufficiently covered.

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 schema already explains both parameters. The description adds context by framing 'consulta' as a 'subgrafo de una consulta', but it does not add meaningful detail about 'max_nodos' beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: it writes an interactive HTML graph file for the corpus or a query subgraph. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like grafo_ver_caso or graphify_consulta_subgrafo, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 opens with explicit usage direction: 'Usala cuando pidan ver el grafo' and provides concrete trigger phrases such as 'mostrame el grafo' and 'mostrame el grafo de despido'. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.

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