legal_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns all relationships and includes article IDs, implying a read-only query. But it does not mention output format specifics, potential performance characteristics, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. Each clause adds information (what it is, what it returns, and how it relates to law_articles), with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview but leaves the output structure undefined. It states the types of relationships returned and that article IDs are included, but not the JSON shape, which is needed for reliable integration when no output schema exists.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says 'Dado uno o mas articulos' (given one or more articles), which conveys the parameter's purpose, but it does not explicitly state that article_numbers_json expects a JSON-encoded array string. The parameter name partially fills that gap, but the description adds only plain-language meaning.

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 returns a semantic relationship graph between legal articles, enumerates relationship types (requires, limits, overrides, complements), and emphasizes it returns ALL such relationships. It also mentions linking to law_articles for further queries, distinguishing its purpose from simpler article lookup tools.

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 usage when you need to discover legal relationships between articles, and references law_articles as a follow-up tool. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings like semantic_search or argument_map, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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