graphify_analizar_impacto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral disclosure. It states what is computed (blast radius, grado 1 and 2) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format looks like, computational constraints, or how the graph is traversed — behaviorally thin for a graph analysis tool with no annotations.

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 core function (calculating blast radius) and immediately specifies the trigger condition (reform or jurisprudential shift) and the output granularity (grado 1 and 2). No 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?

For a 1-parameter graph analysis tool without an output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose and output tiers but lacks information on return format, traversal methodology, or performance characteristics. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to infer.

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% and the parameter count is 1, so baseline is 4 when no params = 4, but here there is one well-documented parameter. The description adds the conceptual meaning of 'objetivo' (norma legal o institución jurídica) beyond the schema's example-based definition, though it doesn't add syntax details.

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 specifies a precise verb and resource — calculating a topological blast radius when a legal norm suffers reform or jurisprudential shift — and details the output tiers (grado 1 directo, grado 2 cascada). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like graphify_trazar_camino or graphify_consulta_subgrafo.

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?

The description implies the scenario (when a legal norm or institution experiences reform or jurisprudential change) but does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like graphify_consulta_subgrafo or graphify_trazar_camino. The context is inferable but not spelled out.

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