graphify_trazar_camino

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notion of minimum paths and deduced subsumption/argumentation chains, but says nothing about computational cost, result shape, or whether path discovery is bounded beyond the max_caminos parameter.

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 that states action, object, and domain without padding. It is dense with legal jargon ('subsunción', 'argumentación dogmática') but every clause carries meaning.

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 should ideally clarify what a returned 'camino' looks like (node/edge list, ordering, scoring). It hints at chains of subsumption but leaves the return structure implicit, which is only marginally adequate for a path-traversal 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% with clear examples for origen/destino and a default for max_caminos, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, normalization, or matching guidance beyond what the schema already states, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

The description gives a specific verb pair (calcula y traza) and a precise resource (caminos relacionales mínimos entre dos conceptos o normas jurídicas), which clearly differs from sibling graphify tools like graphify_consulta_subgrafo or graphify_god_nodes. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 use case is implied by the description — connecting two legal concepts/norms — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as graphify_consulta_subgrafo, and no stated prerequisites. Usage must be inferred.

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