graphify_god_nodes

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 methodological context (PageRank and centrality over the doctrine/norms knowledge graph), but says nothing about the shape of the result, pagination, or cost of the analysis.

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 front-loaded sentence led by the verb with no filler. It is dense with domain jargon but appropriately sized for the operation described.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining results, yet it does not say what a 'God Node' result looks like or how it is ranked. It is conceptually complete for a read-only analysis call but leaves the return value undefined.

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 parameter top_n is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, range, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Identifica') and a well-defined resource ('pilares dogmáticos estructurales / God Nodes') and even names the method (PageRank, centralidad). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling graphify_* tools such as graphify_explicar_institucion or graphify_resumen_comunidades, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The description only says what the tool does, not when an agent should prefer it over the other graphify analysis tools.

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