gograph_arity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; no side effects.' It adds useful context beyond annotations by mentioning the MCP server checks freshness before the call, which is a behavioral trait not captured in annotations.

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 compact, uses clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS), and every sentence adds meaningful information. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it returns (parameter count, signature, file location), covers usage scenarios, and indicates the freshness check. No critical information is missing.

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% for the single 'min' parameter, so the schema already documents it well. The description adds value by explaining the default and edge case (0 includes zero-arity functions) and mentioning the CLI --min equivalence, which provides additional context 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 a specific action ('Find') targeting a specific resource ('functions and methods') with a clear qualifier ('at least a threshold number of parameters') and explicitly names the code smell it addresses ('long-parameter-list smell'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives for struct field counts.

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 provides explicit WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections, including concrete alternative tool names (gograph_fields, gograph_godobj). This gives the agent clear guidance for tool selection and exclusion criteria.

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