graphify_consulta_subgrafo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output style (synthetic hyper-dense subgraphs) and token-efficiency benefit, but does not state side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return structure beyond the schema-documented Mermaid option.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and output type before adding the token-savings value claim. It is efficient, though the 80%-95% promotional figure adds little for tool selection.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the resource and output nature but omits usage routing, output format details, and operational constraints. The fully described input schema compensates partly, but key decision context is still missing.

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 documents query, max_hops, and incluir_mermaid. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('Knowledge Graph Jurídico de Doctrina Chilena / LegalGraphify'), plus the kind of output extracted (subgrafos sintéticos hiper-densos). It does not distinguish itself from graphify siblings such as graphify_trazar_camino or graphify_explicar_institucion, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many graphify and legal-search siblings. Usage is only implied by the query parameter and the mention of token savings versus manuals or conventional RAG.

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