graphify_trazar_camino

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the tool deduces subsumption chains and dogmatic argumentation, but it does not disclose operational traits such as whether it is read-only, what permissions it needs, how expensive the traversal is, or what the output contains.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with the main verb and resource first. It contains no redundant or filler content.

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 graph pathfinding tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain the return shape or traversal behavior. It is minimally adequate because it identifies the operation and the conceptual output, but an agent still lacks details about what the paths look like and when this tool is the right choice.

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 input schema already documents origen, destino, and max_caminos with examples and a default. The description aligns with the two endpoint concepts but adds no extra meaning about parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource: calculating and tracing minimum relational paths between two legal concepts or norms within LegalGraphify. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling graph tools such as graphify_consulta_subgrafo or graphify_analizar_impacto.

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 implies a legal-reasoning use case through 'deduciendo cadenas de subsunción y argumentación dogmática', but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the other graphify sibling tools. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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