community_detail

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

No annotations are supplied, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or the return format. It only states the content of the output, which is insufficient for the agent to anticipate tool behavior.

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 description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loads the main action ('Detalle completo'), though it could have used the brevity to add more practical details without becoming verbose.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'community' in the legal graph, how to invoke the tool correctly, or what the response structure looks like, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'community_id' with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions how to specify the community, its format, or whether it is required. The tool name and phrase 'de una comunidad' imply the parameter's role, but the description fails to add meaningful semantic value 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a complete detail of a legal graph community, specifying the included content (articles, internal relations, external connections). This gives a specific purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'legal_graph' or 'law_articles'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool over siblings.

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