graphify_analizar_impacto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the output shape conceptually (degree 1 direct and degree 2 cascade entities), but says nothing about traversal depth limits, performance cost, or how the graph is bounded.

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 computation and then qualifies the trigger and the granularity of results. No filler, though the parenthetical '(Blast Radius)' and stacked clauses make it slightly heavy.

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 one-parameter, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is computed and what the results represent (grado 1 and grado 2 affected entities). Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though traversal scope and limits remain unspecified.

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 single 'objetivo' parameter already carries examples in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming conventions beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (calcula) and resource (radio de afectación topológico / Blast Radius) with the precise domain trigger (reforma legal or giro jurisprudencial). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from graphify siblings such as graphify_trazar_camino or graphify_consulta_subgrafo, so an agent cannot route among the graphify_* family purely from this text.

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 triggering context (when a norm or institution undergoes reform or a jurisprudential shift), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not conditions, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over other graphify_* traversal tools.

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