gograph_api

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

The description states it is a 100% local, read-only static analysis tool with no side effects, no authorization needed, no rate limits, and no destructive modifications. This adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). No contradiction.

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 well-structured with sections for behavior, usage guidelines, and completeness. It is concise, front-loads key info, and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains purpose, when to use, safety, and an example. No gaps remain.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single required parameter 'since', with clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 3 applies.

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 it extracts the public API surface of a Go package, listing exported functions, types, and interfaces. It distinguishes from the sibling tool gograph_node, which handles private symbols. This provides a specific verb and resource.

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 explicitly states when to use (building integration layers, documenting public interfaces, verifying exports) and when not to (private symbols, directing to gograph_node instead). This is clear usage guidance with an alternative.

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