graphify_resumen_comunidades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the return shape (each community with size, area, representative nodes) and the efficiency profile (a few hundred tokens instead of traversing thousands of nodes). It does not discuss rate limits or auth, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Front-loads trigger queries before the return description and the sibling redirect. The example-query list is somewhat long but each phrase earns its place by broadening recall; no filler sentences.

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 must explain returns, and it does so concretely (communities with size, area, representative nodes). Combined with the clear routing to the sibling and the token-efficiency note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only parameter-level detail is delegated to the schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional top_n parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description never mentions top_n or its default, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 (returns the hierarchical community summary) and resource (the graph/corpus), and explicitly names the sibling it is not (graphify_consulta_subgrafo) for the institution-detail case. An agent can tell it apart from graphify_consulta_subgrafo and graphify_god_nodes without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases («¿qué hay en el corpus?», «dame el resumen general», «qué temas cubre») and the broad-query-vs-specific-institution condition, then names the alternative tool to use instead. Nothing is left to inference.

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