graphify_consulta_subgrafo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them while adding real context beyond the annotations: the nature of the returned artifact (synthetic subgraph), its sources, the size profile (median ficha ~91 tokens), and a reproducible-methodology reference (docs/medicion_tokens.md). It still does not describe pagination, latency, or what happens when the query matches nothing.

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?

Two sentences, purpose and output nature front-loaded, no redundant restatement of the name. The second sentence's exact token figures and the docs path are slightly self-promotional filler, but they do establish credibility of the density claim.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back; it gives the shape at a high level (synthetic subgraph with doctrine, norms and criteria) but never explains the response structure, whether the Mermaid diagram is inline text, or how results are keyed. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 3-parameter retrieval tool.

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; baseline 3 applies. The description mentions none of the three parameters and adds no syntax, format or behavioral detail (e.g. what max_hops=2 changes) beyond the schema.

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/extrae) and a specific resource (Knowledge Graph Jurídico de Doctrina Chilena / LegalGraphify), and characterizes the output as hyper-dense synthetic subgraphs drawn from BCN norms, CS criteria, treatises and procedural material. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the several sibling graphify_* tools (resumen_comunidades, trazar_camino, explicar_institucion, god_nodes), so an agent still has to infer which graph operation fits.

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?

Usage is only implied: the token-savings framing suggests this is the preferred way to consult doctrine instead of reading the full text, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no exclusions relative to graphify_trazar_camino or doctrina_search.

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